Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Kinnicutt Angell

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Kinnicutt Angell

(

)

Joseph Kinnicutt Angell

... that writing of the books of Joseph Kinnicutt Angell (pictured), James Kent asserted that "No intelligent lawyer could well practice without them"? Source: [1]
- ALT1: ... that "no intelligent lawyer could well practice without" the books by Joseph Kinnicutt Angell (pictured)? Source: [2]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Why We Sleep

Created by Kavyansh.Singh (talk). Self-nominated at 14:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC).

The first hook and the article needs to contextualize James Kent for a lay audience (who is he/why is he important?). The ALT hook sounds like the quote is coming in Wikipedia's voice, so I'd steer away from that. The article looks good and the source is being accepted in good faith, as I can't access it. Earwig says that a copyvio is "unlikely." With the hook tweaks, this should be good to go. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @The ed17: Thanks for the review, much appreciated. I have now specified that he was a 'jurist' and former chancellor of New York (in the article). To keep the hook brief, I have just mentioned 'jurist' in ALT2. Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that writing of the books of Joseph Kinnicutt Angell (pictured), jurist James Kent asserted that "No intelligent lawyer could well practice without them"?
  - ALT2a: ... that writing of the books of Joseph Kinnicutt Angell (pictured), legal scholar James Kent asserted that "No intelligent lawyer could well practice without them"?
  - @Kavyansh.Singh: Could you go with "legal scholar"? That's also a descriptor from Kent's article, and I think that's better understood than jurist. Sorry for the nitpicking here. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    - @The ed17: Sure; done in ALT2a. And I think it is supported by the LOC source as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
      - Thanks, Kavyansh.Singh! This is good to go, accepting the source on good faith. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)