The following 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.
ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
Comment: I think it's interesting a woman was overseeing the college before it even allowed female students, but there's more hook facts that can be proposed if reviewer disagrees. I'd also like to restate my shock that this article didn't exist yet!
Comment (not full review): This seems like a really interesting hook and a solid article. One initial thing that has jumped out at me in the 'Personal life' section: "Reportedly, Horace was supportive of his powerful wife and often took the "wife" role at business events the couple attended." This statement doesn't seem to be supported by an in-line citation and I think it is questionably worded as it seems to suggest there is objectively such a thing as a "wife" role. It may be better to use a direct quotation from the source, whatever that is? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
What? It's from the very next ref ([6]), which says, and I quote, Horace, by then a high-powered partner at a New York law firm but an ever-stalwart booster of his spouse's career, played his assigned role, taking his place at luncheons and garden tours organized for the "wives" of the corporations' directors. The sentence in the article is sourced and as accurate to that source as possible, please actually check for that. Kingsif (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad, I'd reviewed that source but somehow missed it (I was a bit jetlagged at the time, not that it's an excuse!). I hope you don't mind but I've taken the liberty of rephrasing the sentence a bit. Subject to that:
Overall: I am happy to approve this. Hook is interesting and well-sourced, no copyvio detected (similarities detected by Earwig are quotations), QPQ done. Apologies again for my close reading fail. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't object to rephrasing the sentence in the article, but your version was at least close paraphrasing and the specific "wives" fragment was straight-up copied from the source - unusual terminology, quotation marks, and all. Please don't do that. Kingsif (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I added dates to the short description by reference to WP:SDDATES ("if space is available such dates are encouraged"), but don't mind not including them. I have had another attempt at rephrasing the sentence and apologise if it was too close to the original source. I'm still learning. Thanks, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
SDDATES mentions in its first line that dates should generally only be included for disambiguation. I.e. if there was another Gertrude Michelson who was also an American businesswoman, since short descriptions are quite often used for that kind of identifying. Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I am happy to approve this. Hook is interesting and well-sourced, no copyvio detected (similarities detected by Earwig are quotations), QPQ done. Apologies again for my close reading fail. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)