Template:Did you know nominations/Emma Hunter (telegrapher)

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 97198 (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Emma Hunter (telegrapher)

(

)

Emma Hunter circa 1879

... that telegraph operator Emma Hunter may have been the world's first electronic commuter? Source: Thomas Jepsen, "The Forgotten Revolution: Women and Telegraphy in Pennsylvania," Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine (2004), http://paheritage.wpengine.com/article/forgotten-revolution-women-telegraphy-pennsylvania/
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph-Alfred Archambeault

Created by Topshelver and User:SusunW. Self-nominated by Topshelver at 17:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC).

Taking this one. Review will follow. SusunW (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Created on July 12, nom on July 14 - new enough; 2523 char - long enough; neutral; cited; no photo; QPQ done. Hook at 88 char is under the maximum; interesting, and neutral. Almost 50% of text is noted in Earwig as being close to the source Pennsylvania Heritage. Reviewing the findings, the article needs a copyedit as close paraphrasing is more than just titles and the one lengthy quote. If you are going to say she is "arguably" IMO, you need to specify who is making that argument. Please ping me when copyedit has rectified the noted issues. SusunW (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I left another note on Topshelver's talk page. If there is no comment in the next few days I suggest closing this as rejected. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Z1720 for notifying Topshelver again. I don't think closing the article is a solution, as we all now know there is close paraphrasing. I'll work on it and try to eliminate that issue, but what I don't know is whether I can approve it still if I fix that problem. SusunW (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW: If it is minor changes then I think you can still approve, but if you are doing some major rewrites or restructuring then this will probably need a new reviewer. When in doubt, get a new reviewer. Once this is ready, you can approve it or mark it with a red "DYK?again" arrow so that a new reviewer will look at it. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've restructured and edited it. Should only have names and the one long quote in Earwig. SusunW (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Needs a new reviewer, I think, based on above conversation. SusunW (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi folks, apologies for the belated response - I sidetracked myself into other projects. SusunW, thanks for cleaning up the article - it looks great. Topshelver (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

--evrik ^(talk) 03:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)