Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Nancy Broadfield Parkinson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Nancy Broadfield Parkinson, George Mearns Savery, Elizabeth Wilhelmina Jones

( Back to TM:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)
Elizabeth Wilhelmina Jones
Elizabeth Wilhelmina Jones
  • Source: Hewlett, Dorothy (1981). Harrogate College 1893-1973. North Yorkshire, England: Harrogate College. ISBN 9780950742700.
Moved to mainspace by Storye book (talk). Number of QPQs required: 6. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 114 past nominations.

Storye book (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC).

  • I understand what you're going for with the hook, but is this really interesting to a broad audience? If a reader is unfamiliar with any of the names provided, the hook doesn't really sound all that interesting, it just said that these names were all involved in a particular school. My suggestion would be to propose individual hooks about each person, rather than going with a multi-hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree; the three articles are best understood if read together. Parkinson, an orphaned female, could never have achieved what she did in that era, without that school, and that school would never have existed as a pioneering, ground-breaking school without those two educational pioneers, Savery and Jones. There is no space in a DYK hook to explain that, and on WP we are not allowed to explain things. Our readers have to work it out. For that, they need to read all three articles. So - sorry, we need this to be a triple. I have added ALT2 and ALT3, which may answer your above concern somewhat. Storye book (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that helps much, even with the additional context. I'm very sorry, but I have struck the hooks for now. I'd like to see first some individual hook proposals first and see if it is at least feasible for them to stand alone. We can revisit the idea for a triple hook if none of them have feasible individual hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the three articles already stand alone as articles. But what they stand for, hookwise, as a set of three is more important. For a woman to attain that position, and achieve that national recognition, requires a level and quality of education which in those days in the UK was not easily available, even for men. I have unstruck ALTs 2 and 3, because I believe we need a second opinion on this. New reviewers: please check out the above discussion. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, I am open to the possibility of a triple hook. I was not closing the door on it entirely. I just said that you needed to at least try to propose first individual hooks for the three. We could then discuss those individual hooks and see if any of them met the interest guidelines. If those hooks would not work out, then the triple hook idea could be revisited. As it stands, you did not even try to propose individual hooks: you were already closed to the idea.
Also, in response to your comment, "For a woman to attain that position, and achieve that national recognition, requires a level and quality of education which in those days in the UK was not easily available, even for men," that arguably counts as specialist information. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Actually, reading through the articles right now, if your point is to show that Parkinson was an exceptional woman who deserves recognition, then that is arguably even more of an argument in favor of an individual hook at least for her, because a triple hook would be like tying her to other notable people instead of allowing her to stand on her own. I have gone through all three articles and all three were accomplished people in their own right: I do not think a triple hook that is primarily about Parkinson would give justice to Savery or Jones. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • If you really want, I can offer a compromise: given how Savery and Jones worked together and both of their articles devote large portions to their collaboration, I am open to a double hook with Savery and Jones, although I would also suggest at least trying to suggest individual hooks for either as possible options. However, I would still recommend that Parkinson have a separate individual hook. As it stands, her article does not even mention Savery, only Jones, and even then, only in passing, and I'm not really a fan of the idea of a hook about her being primarily about her links to others. The more about I think this, while I'm still open to the idea of a triple hook, the more I think it is not the best option and should be more-or-less a last resort. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I have asked for a second opinion, and you have written above, twice, that you are open to a triple hook. That request of mine would include asking the new reviewer (or possibly reviewers, since it's 3 articles) to review the articles properly, and to consider ALT3, so I have unstruck it. Remember that you have only commented on the hook(s), and you have not actually reviewed the articles, so we still need a reviewer. Please don't edit-war over hook-striking. The above hooks do not break WP rules; they do not lie or mislead. Your striking is only about your own opinion.
As for specialist information - how many first-world countries can you think of, where in the World War II era, women could - as easily as men - hold top government civil service positions, and get national awards for it? I think that most citizens of first-world countries would not expect to see women in top government posts during World War II. Think of all the photos you have seen of groups of important top government people signing documents at that time. Do you remember seeing women frequently among all the male suits and uniforms? I am not saying that there were no women in those formal photographs. I am saying that women officials in those photographs were uncommon. So no, that is not specialist information. Storye book (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I do not understand why you are so close-minded to the idea of individual hooks about the three people, especially when I gave good reasons to move away from the triple hook. I mean, the current triple hook makes it seem like we're only really talking about Parkinson rather than also Savery and Jones: do you really want a hook that downplays Savery and Jones? In fact, the hook arguably downplays all three subjects: it reduces Parkinson to just someone who went to a school, and it reduces Savery and Jones to being a school founder. If we went with individual hooks, we could at least describe and promote their individual achievements. Yes, there's context behind Parkinson going to that school, but is that context going to be obvious in the hook? No, and that is the kind of hook that the guidelines explicitly discourage: hooks that are reliant on specialist information, or at least hooks that require explanations to be understandable.
As for the unstriking, you were the one who unstruck the hooks after I struck them, even though I gave my reasons as to why they were struck. If anything, you are acting in bad faith if you are accusing me of edit-warring, when this could have been avoided if you simply stated disagreement with the striking without actually unstriking the hooks yourself. You are free to disagree with a reviewer (not necessarily me), but accusing them of edit-warring, when arguably you should not have unstruck the hooks in the first place, is arguably showing bad faith. My suggestion remains to move away from that angle for now, and to revisit it if other options fall through. For what it is worth, I asked on Discord for opinions regarding ALT3 (in a neutral manner), and the responses said that ALT3 was not interesting to a broad audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • In the interest of this moving forward, I will be reviewing the three articles:
  • Nancy Broadfield Parkinson: checkY the article was moved to mainspace on May 30, so it is new enough. It is long enough, adequately sourced. Two QPQs have been done and they were proper, so they are accepted. I did not detect any close paraphrasing.
  • Elizabeth Wilhelmina Jones: checkY also moved to mainspace on May 30, and meets the length, sourcing, and paraphrasing requirements. Two QPQs have been provided for it.
  • George Mearns Savery: checkY moved to mainspace on the same date, I did not find close paraphrasing, DYK requirements are met, two QPQs done.
I have gone through all three articles, and I'm actually surprised that you did not even propose what is arguably the most interesting aspect about Parkinson. I'll be proposing it as the individual hook for her:
Nancy Broadfield Parkinson
That's actually a standout moment of her life, far more than just simply talking about her going to a school. I would highly suggest focusing on this aspect of her as it is a major accomplishment, and also an interesting aspect of her life that is not reliant on having a background in the history of British education. My only concern about this aspect is that I could not find any UNESCO sites that mention Parkinson, but maybe there are offline sources about it.
George Mearns Savery
As for Jones and Savery, I've proposed individual hooks for both of them, as well as a double hook:
Let me know what you think about these hooks so that we can ask for a new reviewer to review them (I cannot review these hooks myself). In the interest of compromise, I am even unstriking ALT3 to allow for that reviewer to also consider it in addition to the individual hooks and the double hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Thank you for all your hard work on this one. OK, I'll accept Parkinson as a single, and Savery and Jones as a double nom. I have added the quotation from the source for your ALT-NBP Parkinson hook. The British Council, being a government department, is a sufficiently authoritative source for the hook, and is online and verifiable.
I accept your hooks, with the exception of the following: I have adjusted your ALT-G/E hook (i.e. replaced "founding" with "development"), because Jones was not around when the school was founded, but they collaborated in a very intense manner for a short while over the development of the school (then Savery became ill and died, so that Jones carried on the development, but nevertheless, the collaboration was important, and is mentioned in a number of sources in both articles.). In the same hook, I have replaced "women's" with "girls'", because in that era girls did not come of age (I be legally considered women) until they were 21 years old. The school taught girls aged roughly 5-18 years. Storye book (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The infobox ID image from the Parkinson article could be used with her new hook if required. I have added it to her hook above.. I do believe, though, that the above Jones image should be used in the double nom, because it is so eye-catching and beautiful. (And anyway, there does appear to be a reluctance to use ID pics of old, bearded white men on DYK). Storye book (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Now, I have no idea how to re-jig this nom into a single and double. BlueMoonset can you fix that? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC).
I mean that I could not find a third-party source other than the British Council that confirmed the UNESCO fact, since ideally I would have wanted a third-party source for a rather exceptional claim, or even an actual UNESCO source. Since Parkinson was associated with the British Council, they are not exactly an independent source. Anyway, since you've agreed to the new hook proposals, I'm asking for a new reviewer to review all the options proposed so far (including ALT3 and my proposals). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree that such a formal and established British government source as the British Council should need a confirmatory citation. Are you disrespecting the government of my country? However I have added to Parkinson's article a photo of Parkinson as a UNESCO delegate, and added a sentence about it with a newspaper citation. Storye book (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
No need to be offended. It's just that some editors at DYK tend to be skeptical of non-independent or primary sources, so it's mostly for their benefit. I am personally okay with the source as I'm not the kind of editor who's particular about them, but I know that some editors tend to challenge such sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

This nomination has stagnated, and needs the loose ends to be tidied up:

  • The three articles have been reviewed by Narutolovehinata5 as meeting DYK requirements (see above).
  • Someone needs to decide on whether the three articles should have (a) one hook mentioning all three, or (b) one hook for Parkinson and one hook for the pair Savery and Jones, or (c) three separate hooks, one for each article. I don't mind either way, so let's get this thing through the DYK process somehow.
  • When someone makes a decision, the appropriate hook(s) from the list above need to be reviewed.

I can't do any of that because I am the creator. So somebody please help? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi! If I may provide some feedback, I think the best option would be three separate hooks so the three people can get their own spotlight and individual recognition for their achievements. ALT-NBP, ALT-GMS1 and ALT-EWJ seem the most appropiate if we go with separate hooks. NeoGaze (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, NeoGaze. I am happy with your choice, and have struck the unwanted hooks. Please would you now give the green tick for the hooks that you have chosen? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Of course, here I go
  • ALT-NBP: Backing source does indeed support the hook.
  • ALT-GMS1: The newspaper source found in the article supports this hook.
  • ALT-EWJ: I couldn't verify the source for this claim, as it is offline an I have no access to it. However, I'm willing to assume good faith from the editor and let it pass.
Important notice to the person who promotes this nomination: These three hooks are each of independent articles and should be treated like different nominations when promoting them. Ideally they should be accompanied by the previous pictures as well. Storye book Do you have any preference if the hooks should go together in a single prep/queue, or you don't mind they get dispersed between two or three? NeoGaze (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Additional note to promoter: To clarify the question above: The Jones hook should definitely have its picture, because it is striking and will pull in the clicks. Whether you use the other two pics with the Savery and Broadfield hooks is up to you. I don't mind how or when you schedule each hook to be on the front page. Thanks. Storye book (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Storye book, is there any more detail given by the source as to why the brooch influenced Jones to say yes? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I could provide a quote from the source if you like, but it does not give the information that you want. We are not allowed to give opinion or synthesize or add anything speculative. My own opinion/speculation/synthesis rests on the verifiable fact that in the UK shamrocks and horseshoes are commonly understood to represent luck. The source does not need to repeat that fact, because it is obvious to the UK reader. The source leaves us to guess that Jones associated (1) the lucky find of a lucky brooch, (2) at the very point at which she had been asked by her lover/girlfriend to maker her decision about accepting her new job with (3) the idea of predestination, or an indication from heaven or whatever (there are sources to say that she took her religion seriously). I would personally go further and guess that her female friend had almost certainly planted the brooch by the gate in advance, and made the suggestion that Jones should make her decision about the job at that place, knowing that Jones was superstitious and religious. But we can't use any of that (it's more fun to allow the reader to speculate, anyway). I shall check whether the fact that her female companion asked her to make her decision when she reached the gate, is in the article. That bit is already in the same set of citations. Storye book (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Update: yes the fact that her female companion asked her to make her decision when she reached the gate is in the article. I have added a note to explain that shamrocks and horseshoes are considered lucky. Storye book (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Nancy_Broadfield_Parkinson&oldid=1301348388"