- 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) 16:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Links
Marian Wright Edelman
File:Marian Wright Edelman 01.jpg
- ... that members of The Links, an elite organization of upper-class Black women, include Betty Shabazz, Marian Wright Edelman (pictured), and Kamala Harris? Source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Our_Kind_of_People/_FWTEBzgNdcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=the%20links "upper-class black America's most elite organization for women"
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zero-COVID
- Comment: Would be nice to slot sometime in February, if possible. And, whoops, I'm a day late, can we IAR that?
Created by Valereee (talk). Self-nominated at 12:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC).
- @Valereee:
Nice to see you back around the wheelhouse! IAR on timing—Article is long enough, neutral, and plagiarism-free, but that cn tag is going to have to be resolved first. Also, Rolling Stone and International Business Times aren't fantastic sources for this, but Rolling Stone is used for its own opinion, so that one's fine. Hook is cited inline and interesting, and a QPQ has been done (although, jesus, someone should probably step in for that one). Nearly there—super interesting article! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC) - Oh, and definitely approved for Black History Month. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron, I've just removed the assertion for now. Thanks for the review! valereee (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee: All righty, works for me—and IBT? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron, I wasn't thrilled with it, but for such a noncontroversial fact I thought it was okay. I can remove her entry if you would prefer, though. valereee (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC) But Rolling Stone? How is that not RS?
- @Valereee: I'm not sure on Rolling Stone—looks like there's a WP:RSP consensus that it's not reliable for politics and society anymore. As for Rye and IBT, this or this might be marginally more reliable, but I'll leave that up to you. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron, I've replaced IBT with one of yours, and thanks! Meh on RS -- this is hardly a controversial political/cultural/sociological issue. This isn't an assertion that Mitch McConnell deserves the hell he's going through. :) I have seen absolutely nothing anywhere that is arguing this group isn't influential/prestigious. valereee (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- On that one, i think we're all subject-matter experts ;)
good to go! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Theleekycauldron! Would you be willing to put this into the SOHA so it won't get missed by promoters? valereee (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Done-dunino! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Theleekycauldron! Would you be willing to put this into the SOHA so it won't get missed by promoters? valereee (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- On that one, i think we're all subject-matter experts ;)
- Theleekycauldron, I've replaced IBT with one of yours, and thanks! Meh on RS -- this is hardly a controversial political/cultural/sociological issue. This isn't an assertion that Mitch McConnell deserves the hell he's going through. :) I have seen absolutely nothing anywhere that is arguing this group isn't influential/prestigious. valereee (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee: I'm not sure on Rolling Stone—looks like there's a WP:RSP consensus that it's not reliable for politics and society anymore. As for Rye and IBT, this or this might be marginally more reliable, but I'll leave that up to you. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron, I wasn't thrilled with it, but for such a noncontroversial fact I thought it was okay. I can remove her entry if you would prefer, though. valereee (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC) But Rolling Stone? How is that not RS?
- @Valereee: All righty, works for me—and IBT? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron, I've just removed the assertion for now. Thanks for the review! valereee (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron, can I ask you for one more look? I've added an image. Most of these women are alive, so I wasn't sure we'd have one that was free use (other than the various politicians), but there's one of Edelman that is free use. valereee (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ooh! Freely licensed, clear at 100px, and used in article, so good to go. We've been down on POC biopics lately (where's Ktin when you need 'em), so I appreciate it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
