- 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 SL93 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Abigail Franks
edit
Abigail Franks
... that while Abigail Franks (pictured) ran a traditional Jewish home and gave her children a Hebrew education in 18th-century Colonial New York, by the end of the century she had no Jewish descendants?Source: "Franks worked diligently to raise her children as practicing Jews. Daughters and sons received instruction in Hebrew, and the family practiced traditional Judaism, honoring the Sabbath, keeping kosher, and keeping the Jewish holidays ... Of Jacob and Abigail Franks's more than two dozen grandchildren, not one of them appears to have passed on Judaism to his or her descendants" Jewish Women's Archive); Source: "Originally from England, the Franks family were colonial merchants who settled in New York City during the 1700s. By the end of the century, they had mainly disappeared as Jews" (Guide to the Papers of the Franks Family 1711-1821)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/George Mills (novel) (2 of 2)
Created by Yoninah (talk). Self-nominated at 00:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC).
- Article is new enough (May 1) and 4x minimum length. Very thoroughly cited. No close paraphrasing detected, neutrally written, QPQ done. Image OK (caption, clarity, license - public domain due to it being from the 18th century). The hook is properly cited and just within length. Still, I find it a bit wordy and recommend something shorter. (I don't believe Colonial should be capitalized as it's not a proper name.)
- ALT1
... that while Abigail Franks (pictured) was a devout Jew in 18th-century colonial New York, by the end of the century she had no Jewish descendants?
- ALT1
- ALT2
... that while Abigail Franks (pictured) was a devout Jew in 18th-century colonial New York, Judaism in her family did not survive beyond her grandchildren?
- ALT2
MB 00:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @MB: thanks for your review. It's misleading to call her a "devout Jew", as she just kept Shabbat and Kashrut and went to synagogue. Religious Jews keep many more strictures (such as tzniut). Perhaps we could try something else:
- ALT3:
... that a leading Jewish family in 18th-century New York commissioned portraits of themselves in the style of English aristocrats (Abigail Franks portrait pictured)?Yoninah (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Would ALT1 or ALT2 work if devout was changed to committed, which you use in the lead of the article? Shouldn't we stay away from ALT3 since last sentence in the article says some scholars question if the portrait is really of her? Or what about:
- ALT4:
... that surviving letters of Abigail Franks (pictured) show her thoughts on Judaism in colonial New York?
- @MB:, yes, your idea of switching "committed" for "devout" certainly works. Let's go with:
- ALT1a:
... that while Abigail Franks (pictured) was a committed Jew in 18th-century New York, by the end of the century she had no Jewish descendants?Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Good to go with ALT1a. MB 20:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Plenty of childless women exist, and the hook is absolutely uninteresting without information that she reared nine children or had many descendents. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I agree. I would like to resubmit the first hook for consideration:
- ALT0:
... that while Abigail Franks (pictured) ran a traditional Jewish home and gave her children a Hebrew education in 18th-century Colonial New York, by the end of the century she had no Jewish descendants?Yoninah (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the source states that "By the end of the century, they [the family] had mainly disappeared as Jews." That's not the same as having no Jewish descendants. There is also some uncertainty in the statement "It is unknown if any of Abigail's other children married." - there might be some offspring from these unknown children who might be Jewish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: That is the same as having no Jewish descendants. Her grandchildren intermarried; if they were boys, their children would not be Jewish; if they were girls, their children would be Jewish but if they intermarried ... and so on. But I see the hook is not accessible to a broad audience, so here is an alt:
- ALT5: ... that Abigail Franks' (pictured) letters to her son in England are peppered with family gossip, local politics, and observations on the state of Judaism in 18th-century colonial New York? Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- ALT4:
- Would ALT1 or ALT2 work if devout was changed to committed, which you use in the lead of the article? Shouldn't we stay away from ALT3 since last sentence in the article says some scholars question if the portrait is really of her? Or what about:
- ALT5 seems good to me, is cited inline and interesting to a broad audience. Rest of review as per MB. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
