Template:Did you know nominations/Alice Vickery
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 08:28, 29 July 2013 by imported>Antidiskriminator (ok)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Alice Vickery
- ... that the 19th-century physician Alice Vickery (pictured), the first qualified woman chemist and druggist in Britain, advocated free love and believed that marriage was "legal prostitution"?
- Reviewed: Allan McLean (philanthropist)
- Comment: The image would greatly improve the quality of the hook because Vickery looks like a typical Victorian prude, someone we would not expect to be an anti-marriage activist.
Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self nominated at 23:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
- The article is new and long enough.
I used duplication detector and found one sentence with 10 words matched phrase while rest of the sentence might be too close paraphrasing. I would take care about it myself, but because of my language skills I hope nominator would not mind resolving this minor issue.The hook is hooky, properly formatted and not too long (189 characters).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for choosing this nomination. I've rephrased the 10-word sentence. Other matches are that of very long names of organisations and political parties, which obviously cannot be reworded. Is it all sorted out now? Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for very interesting article (and not the only one you wrote). I noticed long names of organizations so I did not mention them as an issue. Thank you for resolving this minor one. I will now continue with the review. The hook assertion about marriage being legal prostitution is not cited. Is it cited with reference at the end of paragraph?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is (page 207). I keep forgetting such citations for some reason. I've had to address that issue in at least a dozen nominations. Sorry for the inconvenience. It's there now. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. AGF on offline source. Good to go.
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. AGF on offline source. Good to go.
- Yes, it is (page 207). I keep forgetting such citations for some reason. I've had to address that issue in at least a dozen nominations. Sorry for the inconvenience. It's there now. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for very interesting article (and not the only one you wrote). I noticed long names of organizations so I did not mention them as an issue. Thank you for resolving this minor one. I will now continue with the review. The hook assertion about marriage being legal prostitution is not cited. Is it cited with reference at the end of paragraph?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for choosing this nomination. I've rephrased the 10-word sentence. Other matches are that of very long names of organisations and political parties, which obviously cannot be reworded. Is it all sorted out now? Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article is new and long enough.
