- 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 Allen3 talk 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Alice Vickery edit
- ... that the 19th-century physician Alice Vickery (pictured), the first qualified woman chemist and druggist in Britain, advocated free love and believed that marriage was "legal prostitution"?
- Reviewed: Allan McLean (philanthropist)
- Comment: The image would greatly improve the quality of the hook because Vickery looks like a typical Victorian prude, someone we would not expect to be an anti-marriage activist.
Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self nominated at 23:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
- The article is new and long enough.
I used duplication detector and found one sentence with 10 words matched phrase while rest of the sentence might be too close paraphrasing. I would take care about it myself, but because of my language skills I hope nominator would not mind resolving this minor issue.The hook is hooky, properly formatted and not too long (189 characters).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for choosing this nomination. I've rephrased the 10-word sentence. Other matches are that of very long names of organisations and political parties, which obviously cannot be reworded. Is it all sorted out now? Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for very interesting article (and not the only one you wrote). I noticed long names of organizations so I did not mention them as an issue. Thank you for resolving this minor one. I will now continue with the review. The hook assertion about marriage being legal prostitution is not cited. Is it cited with reference at the end of paragraph?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is (page 207). I keep forgetting such citations for some reason. I've had to address that issue in at least a dozen nominations. Sorry for the inconvenience. It's there now. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. AGF on offline source. Good to go.
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. AGF on offline source. Good to go.
- Yes, it is (page 207). I keep forgetting such citations for some reason. I've had to address that issue in at least a dozen nominations. Sorry for the inconvenience. It's there now. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for very interesting article (and not the only one you wrote). I noticed long names of organizations so I did not mention them as an issue. Thank you for resolving this minor one. I will now continue with the review. The hook assertion about marriage being legal prostitution is not cited. Is it cited with reference at the end of paragraph?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for choosing this nomination. I've rephrased the 10-word sentence. Other matches are that of very long names of organisations and political parties, which obviously cannot be reworded. Is it all sorted out now? Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article is new and long enough.
