Template:Did you know nominations/The Embrace
- 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 Cielquiparle (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Embrace
- ... that The Embrace, a monument to Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King, was deemed phallic? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/19/martin-luther-king-sculptor-boston-hank-willis-thomas/
- Reviewed:
Created by MagicatthemovieS (talk) and Another Believer (talk). Nominated by MagicatthemovieS (talk) at 15:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC).
Article is new, long enough, well sourced. Hook is short enough, and appropriately "surprising" to gain attention. Article just needs a little work to check that citations match statements, e.g. the Boston Globe source does not seem to support the preceding statement about walking under the arms of the sculpture. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I removed that sentence.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Ummm, I don't love that we're using Newsweek and the New York Post as reliable sources here? I don't think we should be trusting them for American social politics... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Are these sources banned on this website?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:RSP may be of interest here, specifically the mentions about Newsweek and the New York Post. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Are these sources banned on this website?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ummm, I don't love that we're using Newsweek and the New York Post as reliable sources here? I don't think we should be trusting them for American social politics... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I removed that sentence.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- MagicatthemovieS, status update? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I removed the inflammatory sources except for the one place I felt Newsweek was needed. is that alright?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @MagicatthemovieS: where did you feel it was needed? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the "Reception" section.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Oh my – I'm fairly sure that Newsweek is not a reliable enough source to make those assertions. See WP:DUE. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Are you aware of a better article I can use?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @MagicatthemovieS: it's better that the content not be in the article than rely on that source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- So you are unaware of a better source with the same info?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- I'm not going looking, it's not my article – it's on you to either find a better source or cut the info. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @MagicatthemovieS: and the New York Post? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- RemovedMagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- @MagicatthemovieS: and the New York Post? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going looking, it's not my article – it's on you to either find a better source or cut the info. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- So you are unaware of a better source with the same info?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- @MagicatthemovieS: it's better that the content not be in the article than rely on that source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Are you aware of a better article I can use?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oh my – I'm fairly sure that Newsweek is not a reliable enough source to make those assertions. See WP:DUE. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the "Reception" section.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- @MagicatthemovieS: where did you feel it was needed? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I removed the inflammatory sources except for the one place I felt Newsweek was needed. is that alright?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Coolcool. Back to you, Fayenatic london! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay, as it would have been timely to release this sooner. (I had not realised that it was down to me to follow up after my initial assessment, and was assuming that another DYK regular would follow up this nomination before now.) I have reviewed the current version of the article, removed one factoid that I did not find cited, moved a couple of sentences, and reused a citation. I cannot access all the sources in the UK, but accept in good faith that they now support the adjacent statements. As far as I am concerned, this is now OK to go ahead. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
