- 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) 05:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Woman card edit
- ... that when Donald Trump accused Hillary Clinton of playing the woman card, she did and it earned her $2.4 million? Al Jazeera
- Reviewed: Sam Nicholls (Casualty)
Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC).
New article, which meets the criteria for length. I believe the article and hook are impartial, although as it is political we may want to make absolutely sure. Hook length is fine and is back by a reliable source. Article contains no images (although it might be worth adding an image of people mentioned in the article, like Hillary Clinton. User has carried out their QPQ. ISD (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I have pulled this nomination from prep as it contains some inaccurate or unsupported statements, firstly that "media reports criticized [A Gillard speech on misogyny] as "desperate"" when in fact the speech was widely praised, and a statement that Bill Clinton was "viewed to have played the gender card in order to garner support for his wife Hillary" that is not supported by the source. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have added another source for the 2008 Clinton claim. As for Gillard, all the sources I found on it was negative towards it, if you can find any that were positive then feel free to add them. Though I will note that neither of these affected the hook. I would like to ask @ISD: if he could restore the tick please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @The C of E: @Gatoclass: I think the source seems reliable enough for Clinton. Nothing about Gillard is mentioned in the hook so I'm unsure how big a problem it is. Only certain issue I have is that the source should follow a punctuation mark in lines with WP:STYLE. Gatoclass might know more about this than me. ISD (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned about the "reliability" of the source on Clinton, I'm saying that it doesn't say what the article says it does. As for the Gillard "problem" - clearly we should not feature information that is demonstrably inaccurate. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: I am not seeing the problem now as I have added an extra source for Clinton and the media report cite for desperate does say it. I am not seeing what the problem is with the Gillard areas. All reports I have found have been negative about the speech, if you can find some that supported it then feel free to add them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, the Clinton issue looks to be resolved, perhaps I will add something about the Gillard speech before moving forward with this. Gatoclass (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: Any further thoughts? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- With no further comments, @ISD: could you restore the tick please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: Any further thoughts? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, the Clinton issue looks to be resolved, perhaps I will add something about the Gillard speech before moving forward with this. Gatoclass (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: I am not seeing the problem now as I have added an extra source for Clinton and the media report cite for desperate does say it. I am not seeing what the problem is with the Gillard areas. All reports I have found have been negative about the speech, if you can find some that supported it then feel free to add them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned about the "reliability" of the source on Clinton, I'm saying that it doesn't say what the article says it does. As for the Gillard "problem" - clearly we should not feature information that is demonstrably inaccurate. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have made a couple of edits and added some references. If The C of E has no objections to the changes, this one can be restored to prep. Gatoclass (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, no objections from me @Gatoclass:. The Royal C (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)