Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Emily Hale"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>BlueMoonset
m (thought I had added the "?" to the end of the hook; doing it now)
imported>Yoninah
(to Prep 2)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DYKsubpage
+
<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk|</includeonly>[[Category:Passed DYK nominations&nbsp;from January 2020]]<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
|monthyear=January 2020  
+
:''The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify this page.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this nomination's talk page]], [[Talk:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|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'''.''
|passed=<!--When closing discussion, enter yes, no, or withdrawn -->
+
 
|2=
+
The result was: '''promoted''' by [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]])&nbsp;22:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)<br />
 
{{DYK conditions}}
 
{{DYK conditions}}
 
{{DYK header|Emily Hale}}
 
{{DYK header|Emily Hale}}
Line 8: Line 8:
 
<div style="float:right; margin-left:0.5em;" id="mp-dyk-img">
 
<div style="float:right; margin-left:0.5em;" id="mp-dyk-img">
 
{{main page image|image=Commonwealth gt54nh96d accessFull.jpg|caption=Emily Hale at [[Phillips Academy]] in 1956|width=133x150}}
 
{{main page image|image=Commonwealth gt54nh96d accessFull.jpg|caption=Emily Hale at [[Phillips Academy]] in 1956|width=133x150}}
</div><!--
+
</div>
 
 
                  Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion.
 
 
 
-->
 
 
* ... that [[T.S. Eliot]] defended himself from the grave after 1,131 of his letters to '''[[Emily Hale]]''' ''(pictured)'' were released in January 2020, posthumously stating "I never at any time had sexual relations with Miss Hale"? <small>Source: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/01/03/ts-eliot-defends-himself-grave-after-love-letters-are-released-insisting-i-never-any-time-had-sexual-relations-with-miss-hale/ Washington Post], [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/ts-eliot-emily-hale-letters.html New York Times], [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jan/02/ts-eliot-hidden-love-letters-reveal-intense-heartbreaking-affair-emily-hale The Guardian]</small>
 
* ... that [[T.S. Eliot]] defended himself from the grave after 1,131 of his letters to '''[[Emily Hale]]''' ''(pictured)'' were released in January 2020, posthumously stating "I never at any time had sexual relations with Miss Hale"? <small>Source: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/01/03/ts-eliot-defends-himself-grave-after-love-letters-are-released-insisting-i-never-any-time-had-sexual-relations-with-miss-hale/ Washington Post], [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/ts-eliot-emily-hale-letters.html New York Times], [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jan/02/ts-eliot-hidden-love-letters-reveal-intense-heartbreaking-affair-emily-hale The Guardian]</small>
 
:*
 
:*
 
<small>Created by [[User:Js229|Js229]] ([[User talk:Js229|talk]]) and [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) at 01:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC).</small>
 
<small>Created by [[User:Js229|Js229]] ([[User talk:Js229|talk]]) and [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) at 01:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC).</small>
<!--
 
* {{DYKmake|Emily Hale|Js229|subpage=Emily Hale}}
 
* {{DYKmake|Emily Hale|Britishfinance|subpage=Emily Hale}}
 
-->
 
  
 
:* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Now that’s interesting! The hook is just shy of 200 characters. No citation issues. The prose is long enough with neutrality. It’s new enough and the image has no issues. All you need is QPQ. [[User:Trillfendi|⌚️]] ([[User talk:Trillfendi|talk]]) 13:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 
:* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Now that’s interesting! The hook is just shy of 200 characters. No citation issues. The prose is long enough with neutrality. It’s new enough and the image has no issues. All you need is QPQ. [[User:Trillfendi|⌚️]] ([[User talk:Trillfendi|talk]]) 13:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 
::* Thanks {{u|Trillfendi}}. I thought this would be interesting (and is getting wide press coverage). I have less than 5 DYKs, so I think it should be okay for QPQ? [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 13:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 
::* Thanks {{u|Trillfendi}}. I thought this would be interesting (and is getting wide press coverage). I have less than 5 DYKs, so I think it should be okay for QPQ? [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 13:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 
:::*I have added the missing (and required) question mark at the end of the hook, which puts it at 199 characters, and "(pictured)" as well, though given the damage to the image, I can't recommend its use. Britishfinance is correct, in that no QPQ is required for nominators who have fewer than five prior DYK credits (and I only see one for them). However, [[User:Trillfendi|Trillfendi]], if a QPQ were outstanding, an approval tick should not be given since there's still something that needs to be done before the nomination can be promoted; instead, the "?" icon is what's appropriate when a QPQ needs to be supplied. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 23:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 
:::*I have added the missing (and required) question mark at the end of the hook, which puts it at 199 characters, and "(pictured)" as well, though given the damage to the image, I can't recommend its use. Britishfinance is correct, in that no QPQ is required for nominators who have fewer than five prior DYK credits (and I only see one for them). However, [[User:Trillfendi|Trillfendi]], if a QPQ were outstanding, an approval tick should not be given since there's still something that needs to be done before the nomination can be promoted; instead, the "?" icon is what's appropriate when a QPQ needs to be supplied. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 23:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
+
{{-}}</div><includeonly>|}}</includeonly><!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Latest revision as of 22:41, 16 January 2020

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 Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Emily Hale

Emily Hale at Phillips Academy in 1956
Emily Hale at Phillips Academy in 1956

Created by Js229 (talk) and Britishfinance (talk). Nominated by Britishfinance (talk) at 01:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Now that’s interesting! The hook is just shy of 200 characters. No citation issues. The prose is long enough with neutrality. It’s new enough and the image has no issues. All you need is QPQ. ⌚️ (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks Template:U. I thought this would be interesting (and is getting wide press coverage). I have less than 5 DYKs, so I think it should be okay for QPQ? Britishfinance (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have added the missing (and required) question mark at the end of the hook, which puts it at 199 characters, and "(pictured)" as well, though given the damage to the image, I can't recommend its use. Britishfinance is correct, in that no QPQ is required for nominators who have fewer than five prior DYK credits (and I only see one for them). However, Trillfendi, if a QPQ were outstanding, an approval tick should not be given since there's still something that needs to be done before the nomination can be promoted; instead, the "?" icon is what's appropriate when a QPQ needs to be supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)