Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Durham's Chapel School"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Orlady (removed a word from ALT2 to meet the character limit) |
imported>Orlady (additional comment) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:::::::Ah, I see your concern that the article doesn't explicitly say the equipment was for training girls to be servants. How does this rewording work for you? | :::::::Ah, I see your concern that the article doesn't explicitly say the equipment was for training girls to be servants. How does this rewording work for you? | ||
::::::::*'''ALT2''': ... that after the U.S. Supreme Court [[Brown v. Board of Education|declared school segregation unlawful]], a '''[[Durham's Chapel School|segregated school in Tennessee]]''' was given new kitchen equipment for use in classes that trained black girls to be servants? --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 17:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC) | ::::::::*'''ALT2''': ... that after the U.S. Supreme Court [[Brown v. Board of Education|declared school segregation unlawful]], a '''[[Durham's Chapel School|segregated school in Tennessee]]''' was given new kitchen equipment for use in classes that trained black girls to be servants? --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 17:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::::::For the record, I was appalled that, instead of complying with the Supreme Court mandate to desegregate (very few Southern communities complied), the county put money into segregated facilities had a purpose that was fundamentally racist. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Revision as of 18:09, 24 March 2014
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Durham's Chapel School
- ... that after the U.S. Supreme Court declared public school segregation unlawful, a segregated school in Tennessee was given new kitchen equipment for training black girls to be domestic servants?
- ALT1: ... that Durham's Chapel School and Cairo Rosenwald School were among seven Rosenwald schools built in Sumner County, Tennessee?
- Reviewed: ThePsychoExWife.com
5x expanded by Orlady (talk). Self nominated at 02:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC).
5x (since the 20th), long enough, "within policy", no copyvio found via spotcheck (no tool), QPQ done (though the IP is waiting for a reply). The kitchen part of the first hook isn't cited in the article, if you wanted to use that hook. That first hook is a bit messy since the article isn't cited as saying that the equipment following Brown was specifically kitchen equipment and it doesn't say it was for making domestic servants, though the school's purpose of doing so is mentioned later. I suggest rephrasing it within the article. Second hook looks okay, but it needs an immediate inline ref in the article (see 3b). Also (this isn't required for the nom, but) it'd be nice to have the page numbers in the PDF citation—otherwise it's a lot of digging around without OCR to try to verify the info. Up to you. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ♔ 23:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I've added footnotes for the ALT hook. I personally think the original hook is more interesting, though. The article states that a "sink, refrigerator, and stove" were installed after the Supreme Court decision. In the hook, I summarized those three items as "kitchen equipment". Is that not sufficiently clear? Would it help any if the words were hyperlinked? I don't think it should be necessary for a DYK hook to be a verbatim repetition of words in the article, so I think it is sufficient that the article states in one place that the "sink, refrigerator, and stove" were installed in the industrial room after the court decision and states in another place that the home economics training conducted in the industrial room was intended to "qualify [girls] for employment as domestic servants". Do you feel that readers are disserved by having those two pieces of information in separate paragraphs? --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mean it pedantically—just that a stove could be for heating a room and a sink for washing hands, not necessarily for home ec purposes so I didn't know from the context. It would help to clarify the prose according to the source. Better to not have the ambiguity, no? (And it doesn't have to be verbatim.) Somewhat outside the scope of this review, but yes, I think it would help to have this info consecutive in the prose, since it's ostensibly a large part of the school's function and it isn't clear in the prose right now. And paged footnotes would help easily locate the relevant passages. czar ♔ 05:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I hadn't thought of the ambiguity on "stove", "sink", etc. (That's the sort of thing we all need reviewers for!) I've added clarifying words to the article. --Orlady (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- As for page references in the footnotes, I understand the reason for requesting them (it's annoying to have to open the nom form one page at a time), but I'm not thrilled with the idea of doing that because many statements in the article are based on the nom form as a whole -- or combine information from multiple pages of the nom form. Also, listing of page numbers is complicated by the fact that the page numbers that appear on the pages of the source document are different from the numbering for the files that contain individual pages. For example, the statement about white people supporting the home economics program because it trained black girls to be servants is on "Page 9" of "Continuation Sheet" portion of the document, but website "page" 13 (i.e., SP_DurhamsChapelBaptist_001 13). --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1 is
gtg but I'm not comfortable approving the first hook without the prose explicitly saying the new equipment was for girls only and specifically to make them servants. As far as I know, the equipment was also used for boys and its intention could have been training for helping in their own homes. If you think it's silly to ask for the link to be made clearer, I can recuse myself from the review, if you'd prefer. I understand your logic on the page numbers, but I imagine the need for locations would be even greater if the citation happens across multiple pages. (Again, it's outside the scope of the review and completely optional.) czar ♔ 16:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I see your concern that the article doesn't explicitly say the equipment was for training girls to be servants. How does this rewording work for you?
- ALT2: ... that after the U.S. Supreme Court declared school segregation unlawful, a segregated school in Tennessee was given new kitchen equipment for use in classes that trained black girls to be servants? --Orlady (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, I was appalled that, instead of complying with the Supreme Court mandate to desegregate (very few Southern communities complied), the county put money into segregated facilities had a purpose that was fundamentally racist. --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I see your concern that the article doesn't explicitly say the equipment was for training girls to be servants. How does this rewording work for you?
- ALT1 is
- I didn't mean it pedantically—just that a stove could be for heating a room and a sink for washing hands, not necessarily for home ec purposes so I didn't know from the context. It would help to clarify the prose according to the source. Better to not have the ambiguity, no? (And it doesn't have to be verbatim.) Somewhat outside the scope of this review, but yes, I think it would help to have this info consecutive in the prose, since it's ostensibly a large part of the school's function and it isn't clear in the prose right now. And paged footnotes would help easily locate the relevant passages. czar ♔ 05:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I've added footnotes for the ALT hook. I personally think the original hook is more interesting, though. The article states that a "sink, refrigerator, and stove" were installed after the Supreme Court decision. In the hook, I summarized those three items as "kitchen equipment". Is that not sufficiently clear? Would it help any if the words were hyperlinked? I don't think it should be necessary for a DYK hook to be a verbatim repetition of words in the article, so I think it is sufficient that the article states in one place that the "sink, refrigerator, and stove" were installed in the industrial room after the court decision and states in another place that the home economics training conducted in the industrial room was intended to "qualify [girls] for employment as domestic servants". Do you feel that readers are disserved by having those two pieces of information in separate paragraphs? --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)