Template:Did you know nominations/Ewa Ziarek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by  Ohc ¡digame! 06:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ewa Ziarek[edit]

  • ... that in 2001 Ewa Ziarek wrote the book An Ethics of Dissensus?
  • Comment: in case you need another woman for day or month

Created by Kevin Gorman (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 15:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment only - Article and hook are not very interesting. I made some suggestions on the talk page. If Prof. Ziarek or someone who knows her reads this - then what about a cc image? Victuallers (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Responding quickly because I need to run to an outreach event in a bit, but I saw your comment on talk before it was in the process of moving over. As a note, I'm absolutely fine with this not being a DYK, although I'm absolutely fine with it also being one (though I didn't submit it myself.) Ewa Ziarek is someone who is who meets multiple notability guidelines: the GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ACADEMIC, and thus someone we should have an article on. Her work has been significantly influential in her field. The article as it stands currently is more or less a stub, but one that we should nonetheless have. Does it eventually need expansion and further explanation of her work etc? Well, yeah, of course - but things often start out stubbish. I intend to eventually rework this entire set of articles to be significantly longer after I've finished some of my initial goals. After conversations with multiple currently active prominent women philosophers, it became apparent that a vast majority of currently active academic women philosophers actively do not/would not want their image in a Wikipedia article, for reasons that make sense (that I can get in to if you'd like when I have time later today.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - I see your point about images, but there is one at buffalo.edu which I guess she may have agreed to. Still thats your judgement. I think DYK would give your article/subject some exposure and others may well add a bit. I would encourage you to add a bit about her views on philosophy. Knowing she disagrees with someone is just a tease. What do they disagree about? ... and I assume that "Dissensus" means something interesting within the domain of philosophy. Your article is good and complies with most rules. I feel she could be a bit more interesting.... and that would give a more interesting hook - I hope. Do you want this to appear ASAP or on International Womens Day on 8th March? Victuallers (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't nominate it, and don't have strong feelings about when it appears. I don't normally participate in DYK for various reasons, although now that you bring up the suggestion of holding things for IWD, I am pretty tempted to write up a number of more substantial bios of missing prominent women from various fields and try to get them up on IWD. I fully intend to do a second pass through the stub type articles I am writing about prominent women philosophers to expand them, as well as eventually getting the necessary conceptual articles up to explain their work without going through contortions on their individual pages (although a lot of the conceptual work I'll likely supervise through the EP rather than write directly,) but in the interim, imagine trying to write a bio on a famous computer scientist if Wikipedia had no articles about concepts in computer science. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Article and hook are well reffed. A more hooky hook would be good. Right age and length. No obvious paraphrasing..........Hmm good point Kevin. If we don't have these concepts then maybe International Women's Day might persuade/intrigue someone to add them. I have (boldly?) added a bit to the article but feel free to revert. I would like to suggest that you add "feminist" into the hook to attract more clicks. IWM day is well represented, but wouldn't it be great if it was so over subscribed that we had to run more articles about women (than usual!) for a few days! Victuallers (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Having thought about it further, assuming the article can be held until IWD, since this hook will require me to right a separate stub about the concept, a good alternate hook might be something like the below - if held until IWD, I'd have time to both expand Ziarek's article further, and write a separate article about agonistic feminism. (If I had intended to DYK this, I probably would've done both at once in the first place, but hadn't been intending to.) It'd both be a more interesting hook, and hit two articles at once:
  • ... that Ewa Ziarek advocates agonistic feminism?
Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I nominated "her" because I found the idea of something like a "culture of dissenting" highly desirable, also liked "a major interest in engaging with other scholars on their own terms". I guess by speaking of agonistic feminism, you lose half of potential readers from the start. I recommend to write that article and make it a separate DYK. My experience: by having two bold items in one hook, one loses. My 2 cents. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Gerda - your reasoning works for me. (I participate in DYK infrequently enough that I don't have much experience with what works and what doesn't.) Thanks for picking up on the interesting bits and nomming her (and I will expand her article further as I can, certainly.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Gorman (talkcontribs) 20:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It'll certainly be a bit less of a stubbish article by then, and March 8th seems like appropriate timing if there ends up being room for it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)