Template:Did you know nominations/Reconstructing Womanhood
- 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.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Reconstructing Womanhood
- ... that Reconstructing Womanhood by Hazel Carby, about the history of American black women writers, was said to be a "landmark study" and "groundbreaking"?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Tariq al-Qods
- Comment: It was 583 characters before expansion A 5x expansion from that is 2,915 characters. The article is currently 2,978 characters. I used the page size tool because I can't get DYK check to work correctly.
5x expanded by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC).
- Comment (not a full review): @SL93: I'm relatively new to the behind the scenes of DYK, so I could be wrong here, but aren't the sources of information supposed to be provided with the proposed fact? I don't see a source listed on the nomination page. Wouldn't it be important to include "{{cite book | last=Kowaleski-Wallace | first=Elizabeth | title=Encyclopedia of Feminist Literary Theory | publisher=Routledge | year=2009 | isbn=978-1-135-22129-4 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=in-MAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA391 | access-date=September 5, 2022 | page=391}}" and "{{cite book | last=Donnell | first=Alision | title=Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture | publisher=Taylor & Francis | year=2002 | isbn=978-1-134-70024-0 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B-XkBXMWKjcC&pg=PT148 | access-date=September 5, 2022 | page=148}}" to this nomination page? RoundSquare (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- RoundSquare That has never been a requirement. The reviewer needs to check the sources in the article anyway, whether or not they are linked here. SL93 (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @RoundSquare: I think it's considered a courtesy, and is listed somewhere as an expected step; but SL93 is right, reviewer needs to check anyway. It is probably a good idea to give a short excerpt if it is a paywalled or offline source, so the reviewer can verify it better. But yeah, more courtesy than requirement. –LordPickleII (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- RoundSquare That has never been a requirement. The reviewer needs to check the sources in the article anyway, whether or not they are linked here. SL93 (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Just making it clear that a review is still needed. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
5x expansion verified, QPQ done. Earwig found no copying. Properly sourced. The hook is only mildly catchy but I think it's good enough to pass; hook sourcing verified. Good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
