Talk:Elizabeth Thorn
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Z1720 in topic Did you know nomination
 | A fact from Elizabeth Thorn appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 August 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that Elizabeth Thorn was six months pregnant when she buried approximately one hundred fallen soldiers after the Battle of Gettysburg? Source: "Elizabeth Thorn: 'Those Were Hard Days,'" https://www.thegettysburgexperience.com/elizabeththorn; "More than Petticoats: Remarkable Pennsylvania Women," https://archive.org/details/morethanpetticoa0000hert/page/69
Created by Topshelver (talk). Self-nominated at 12:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC).
I did a quick check of the article and it seems to be fine. Right now the main issue is that the sentence mentioning Thorn's pregnancy lacks a footnote. The full review will follow once that's fixed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi User:Narutolovehinata5 - good catch. I have added an in-line citation to the sentence in question. Please let me know if anything else is needed. Topshelver (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. The article meets requirements and a QPQ has been provided. I also did not detect any close paraphrasing. Most of the sources are offline so I am assuming good faith on their information. @Topshelver: Just to clarify, however, which is the source that provides the "approximately one hundred" number? The sentence in question is referenced to three references, but the only reference that's online doesn't seem to give that figure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5:That's a good question. I added a sentence further down with multiple in-line citations reflecting that there is uncertainty/conflicting information about the exact number of burials. Around one hundred is the estimate from the two secondary sources/books that I consulted. Topshelver (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The source for the 91 figure actually says it was 91 soldiers plus an unspecified number of civilians, but "approximately 100 soldiers" sounds right. Since this has been addressed I think we're good to go with the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5:That's a good question. I added a sentence further down with multiple in-line citations reflecting that there is uncertainty/conflicting information about the exact number of burials. Around one hundred is the estimate from the two secondary sources/books that I consulted. Topshelver (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
