This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
A fact from Reconstructing Womanhood appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 October 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Reconstructing Womanhood by
Hazel Carby, about the history of American black women writers, was said to be a "landmark study" and "groundbreaking"?
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.
... that Reconstructing Womanhood by
Hazel Carby, about the history of American black women writers, was said to be a "landmark study" and "groundbreaking"?
Comment: It was 583 characters before expansion A 5x expansion from that is 2,915 characters. The article is currently 2,978 characters. I used the page size tool because I can't get DYK check to work correctly.
Comment (not a full review):@
SL93: I'm relatively new to the behind the scenes of DYK, so I could be wrong here, but aren't the sources of information supposed to be provided with the proposed fact? I don't see a source listed on the nomination page. Wouldn't it be important to include "{{cite book | last=Kowaleski-Wallace | first=Elizabeth | title=Encyclopedia of Feminist Literary Theory | publisher=Routledge | year=2009 | isbn=978-1-135-22129-4 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=in-MAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA391 | access-date=September 5, 2022 | page=391}}" and "{{cite book | last=Donnell | first=Alision | title=Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture | publisher=Taylor & Francis | year=2002 | isbn=978-1-134-70024-0 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B-XkBXMWKjcC&pg=PT148 | access-date=September 5, 2022 | page=148}}" to this nomination page?
RoundSquare (
talk)
02:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
RoundSquare: I think it's considered a courtesy, and is listed somewhere as an expected step; but
SL93 is right, reviewer needs to check anyway. It is probably a good idea to give a short excerpt if it is a paywalled or offline source, so the reviewer can verify it better. But yeah, more courtesy than requirement. –
LordPickleII (
talk)
16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
5x expansion verified, QPQ done. Earwig found no copying. Properly sourced. The hook is only mildly catchy but I think it's good enough to pass; hook sourcing verified. Good to go. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply