Template:Did you know nominations/Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon

(

)

~~... that in 1933, Lady Simon was knighted for her efforts to combat slavery and racial discrimination?~~

Reviewed: R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self nom at 00:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Date and length fine. However there are some problems with the hook as it is not inline sourced in the article and also it's incorrect as women can't be knighted. I'd also feel much better if the disambig templates were fixed and removed from the article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is inline sourced. Each and every paragraph is wholly covered by the source given at the end of it, but I added an extra citation right after the hook. As for whether or not it's appropriate to use the word knighted, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#A man is knighted and a woman is...?. The consensus seems to be that it is (or is she damned?). It also seems to me that a hook using the word "knighted" would attract much more attention than a hook using the phrase "appointed dame of the British Empire". Anyway, I've dealt with the templates. Thank you for suggestions! Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If the ref desk say it's fine, then I suppose it's OK (even though I'm personally not sure it's correct etiquette) Good to go then. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks (links, spelling). I wonder about having two virtually identical photos, but otherwise it seems good to go. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article. The photographs are not exactly identical, though I see what you mean - both were taken on the same day and thus represent her at the same stage of life. However, all the photographs of her I could find were taken on the same day. Would it be better to remove one? I'm inclined to say no, but I could be wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a case of right or wrong, just of subjective preference. Mine is to remove one, but it shouldn't affect this DYK going forward either way. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've come to agree with you. I've replaced the second photograph with a photograph of her husband and inserted the removed photograph into the article about him. Surtsicna (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article may be too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "restless travelling around the country and speaking at meetings with the aim of rousing public awareness and raising funds" with "travelled the country indefatigably, speaking at innumerable meetings to rouse public opinion and raise funds". More broadly, compare the structure of "She received a private education, but also attended various Dublin schools. Trained as a nurse, she worked in London slums. On 21 February 1885, she married the Irish physician Thomas Manning MD and then moved with him to Tennessee, where she first encountered white racism...led Kathleen Manning to join the Anti-Slavery Society on her return to Britain" with "She was educated privately and at various schools in Dublin. She trained as a nurse and worked in some of the poorest districts of London...On 21 February 1885 she married Dr Thomas Manning MD of co. Kerry, and she then accompanied him to Tennessee. It was there that she first encountered white racism...led her to join the Anti-Slavery Society on her return to Britain". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but is there a way to fix it other than removing information? I will try to find more sources, but I am not sure there will be any. Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Though it's trickier with a single source, it should be possible to reword and restructure sufficiently to avoid this problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll do what I can, though the fact that English is not my first language won't be of much help. I'll try these copy-editing instructions and perhaps even requesting help. Hopefully, I'll have enough time. Surtsicna (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've included one other major source. Has it solved any issues? Surtsicna (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked Accedie for help three days ago and she gave a complete makeover to the article. I sincerely doubt close paraphrasing is an issue now, but I would appreciate if you took another look at it - just to be sure. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

ODNB source is clear; I don't have access to the other sources to check them. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me; as I don't have access to the sources I'll have to AGF on the paraphrasing issue, but I trust that Accedie has been able to resolve this (Nikkimaria's comments about ODNB suggest that is so). The article is well written and usefully illustrated. Sources are high-quality, date and length are fine. The fact in the hook is referenced but the hook itself is wrongly worded; you don't knight a Dame, you appoint them. We'll therefore have to use the following alternative or something similar, as I can't approve the original hook. Prioryman (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that in 1933, Lady Simon was appointed a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for her efforts to combat slavery and racial discrimination?

Are you sure that using the word "knighted" would be wrong? As I mentioned earlier, the answer I got when I asked that question is that the honour is still called knighthood and that it would not be wrong to say that a dame was knighted. I fear that the hook you suggested would not be very hooky. There are other options, however. The Monarchy website uses the expressions "give a knighthood", "confer a knighthood", "receive a knighthood", "award a knighthood", etc. So, I would propose:

ALT2 ... that in 1933, Lady Simon received a ~~knighthood~~ damehood for her efforts to combat slavery and racial discrimination?
ALT3 ... that in 1933, Lady Simon was awarded a ~~knighthood~~ damehood for her efforts to combat slavery and racial discrimination? Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, without giving too much away, I'm a member of the Order of the British Empire myself (I scanned this from the original item) and I've had to announce the appointment of other members of the Order and of related Orders, so I know first-hand that "appointment" is the correct terminology. Knighthoods are not given to women; the correct term is "damehood" (see [1], though this term isn't widely used. "Knighthood" in this hook would be definitively wrong. Prioryman (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Amazingly, I overlooked the first sentence, which clearly says that damehood is the female equivalent of knighthood. I blame selective attention. Would it be alright to replace the word "knighthood" with the word "damehood" in ALT2 and ALT3 (see above)? That would result in a short and undisputedly accurate hook. Surtsicna (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess so. Which of the two ALTs do you prefer? Prioryman (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker, so I am not sure which one sounds better. Assuming that both are okay, I would say ALT2 because it is the shortest one. Surtsicna (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree. Let's go for ALT2, which I think wraps up this review. I've crossed out the other hooks to avoid confusing the person who promotes this nomination. Thanks for your help! Prioryman (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)