Template:Did you know nominations/Well he would, wouldn't he?
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 22:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Well he would, wouldn't he?
- ... that "he would, wouldn't he?" Source: https://inews.co.uk/culture/well-he-would-wouldnt-he-bbcs-the-trial-of-christine-keeler-gets-famous-quote-right-374825
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew J. Evans Jr.
- Comment: Expansion from this version of the article began on January 5 in this draft.
5x expanded by Voorts (talk) and Tim O'Doherty (talk). Nominated by Voorts (talk) at 21:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Well he would, wouldn't he?; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
@Voorts: A very nicely executed article (it's great to see such robust academic coverage of not-so-traditionally famous but nevertheless undeniably notable person, or rather of something she said), and a very fun hook! I've checked sources that are available to me (non-charge accessible online, and one OpenLibrary book) and AGF on the rest. Earwig finds plagiarism unlikely. The article is long enough, and the article has references for all body text paragraphs. I just have a few comments about the page, that I think would be simple to fix.
First, the body text as is seems to accidentally attribute the words of Robert McCrum's review of Peter Stanford's biography of Bronwen Astor to Stanford (e. g. "among the most devastating sentences uttered in the English language in the last half century", "careful reconstruction of pre-war social certainties", and "finally exposed as utterly fraudulent" are all McCrum's words in his review summarizing part of the book's narrative and aren't in Bronwen Astor, Her Life and Times proper). That portion just needs to be revised to attribute the words accurately to McCrum and his review.
Second, the page as is attributes Harold Macmillan's resignation solely to his "ill health", but the source itself (the book Supermac) is ambiguous on his motives. Page 566 goes on to say Macmillan was aware that his condition was benign, not malignant, and that "Far from believing he had cancer, Macmillan 'expressed great relief that he had reason to leave the political crises which he had faced'", making it sound like he resigned to avoid political fallout rather than to take care of his health (566). Is there a way to rephrase this to (without overwhelming the page) reflect the source's own ambiguity over Macmillan's reasons for resigning?
Thank you for bearing with these additional requests; since DYK brings a lot of attention to pages (as you well know, I suspect), I just want to make sure these are cleared up. With the resolution of these, I will be glad to approve the nomination. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)<
- @P-Makoto - these slip-ups are all to do with me. Hang on. I'll deal with 'em. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Right. I did originally, when writing that bit, think that it was a McCrum quote rather than a Stanford quote. However, I cross-checked it with Google Books, and saw that it had appeared in the book. That's my fault; I was going to attribute it to McCrum originally, but got too sure of myself. That's embarrassing. I'll fix it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- To your second concern, I'm not sure what went wrong: might be a muddle-up with different editions of the book? I'll extend it to that version's page 548, which has the quote: "
Macmillan was not brought down by Profumo: he was brought down by his prostate
". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)- Ah, that line makes the Macmillan matter much more unequivocal; citing to that page, I think saying that he resigned for his health is completely appropriate. As for the McCrum quotation, that's odd how searching on GoogleBooks yields a hit, but searching in the book's own preview doesn't. Maybe something to do with how Google's search works. Or maybe McCrum's review is quoted on the back cover? In any case, looks like both are fixed, so I have approved the nomination below. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @P-Makoto - these slip-ups are all to do with me. Hang on. I'll deal with 'em. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @P-Makoto: I'm going to tag in my co-nominator, Tim O'Doherty, who is probably better equipped to address your comments. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
With both questions answered/alleviated per the thread above, I am glad to approve the article for DYK. Well done! P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @P-Makoto - Cheers. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
