Template:Did you know nominations/Durham's Chapel School
- The following discussion 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 — Maile (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Durham's Chapel School
edit( )
... 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: ... after the U.S. Supreme Court declared school segregation unlawful, a segregated school in Tennessee received new kitchen equipment for use in classes that trained black girls to work as 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)
- ALT1 and ALT2 gtg. I copyedited ALT2 to better match the prose, since "to be servants" can imply other things. I actually study the history of education (part of why I chose to review this hook) and this is hardly the tip of the iceberg—I haven't read enough of the sources for this specific case, but non-whites were often tracked for vocational ed programs because it was seen as a more realistic training than academic studies (even if it just perpetuated class inequities). And the school planners usually felt they were doing genuine good by preparing such a program, even though it really just served their own interests to prolong their dominion (to wit, doing my source check:
Sumner County whites supported home economics training for the local African-American girls because they assumed that work as domestics in homes in nearby Gallatin was appropriate, and their best chance at steady employment
). czar ♔ 21:30, 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)
