Talk:Women's literary salons and societies in the Arab world

Did you know?

This article should be eligible for appearing on the main page as a "Did you know" entry, if it is nominated it soon; it is supposed to be nominated within 5 days of being created or significantly (5x) expanded.

The instructions for nominating it are at Template talk:Did you know. Basically, all you need to do is take this code:

{{subst:NewDYKnom| article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=  }}

and write the hook, a concise and interesting bit of info from the article beginning with "... that" and ending with a question mark. The info from the hook has to be present in the article and supported (in the article) with a citation. Someone will double-check to make sure the source says what it's claimed to say.

Once you've come up with a hook, fill in your username as the author and fill the title of the article, then add the above code, including your hook following the "hook=" part, to the top of the appropriate section for the day the article was started on the DYK template talk page. The code will produce an entry formatted like the others. After that, just keep an eye on the entry; if anyone brings up an issue with it, try to address it. I'll keep an eye out as well. If everything goes well, it will appear on the Main Page for several hours a few days from now.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for Edits

Impressive article! It really offers in depth contextualization and analysis of the topic. And the images you have put up are really cool! After reading it over, here are my comments, feel free to use or disregard them:

• Consider changing the order of the two first sub-headings. Definition before history.
• Some parts of the article (Eg: the Habermas statement) are more interpertive and analytical rather than purely descriptive. Perhaps that is necessary - you be the judge.
• Consider changing this (Pioneering women: 'Stories behind the story') heading to one that is more descriptive (and less creative) of the section.
• Wikipedia does not usually capitalize anything but the first word of a sentence in a heading, this is more of a stylistic choice I guess.
• Consider captioning the images - if you do not have the names of women in the images then caption it with something relevant like the time period of the image.
• In the "Men who visited the salon" section, are you planning to add text? Also, are the names of the men in the images available?
• Consider linking some of the words to other Wikipedia pages, like "Shiite" or the first mentioning of Beirut, Damascus and other cities/countries in the Arab world.
• Is there anything particularly significant with the salons after WWII? if not, consider skipping to the modern period to give a short idea of if this is still practiced and if so what the dominant characteristics of modern-day literary salons are.

Goodluck! Ka Yaffa (talk), 17:05 17 November 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

comments

Wow. Impressive indeed. Ka Yaffa has good suggestions, many of which you've addressed already now that I am reading a week later. I love that you bring it up to the present. Great outline and sourcing. It's got some repetition in it, but I'm guessing that one must have that in such an article in case readers skip from one section to another, so it is not a problem. Pictures really add a lot to the reading experience too. One thing jumped out: The sentence about Habermas doesn't really make sense the way you have written it. It refers to "the letters" but he's talking about letters more generally and you're referring to specific moments. Somehow try to rephrase that -- Ka Yaffa even points out that it seems a bit off to her too. I'm not sure it is even needed here, or if it is say something more like "The publication of letters is interpreted by Jurgen Habermas, in his work on the public sphere, to be (or to signify)(and say what he means as you have done in the entry) " (and then say what they meant in the context you are discussing)

Radavis147 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)