Talk:Dangers of the Mail

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detail from Dangers of the Mail
Detail from Dangers of the Mail

Created by Valereee (talk). Self-nominated at 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good. Promoted. Dr Salvus 22:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahem... no? There's a QPQ missing here, @Dr Salvus. Also, @Valereee, what did you mean to say, do you want to run with an image? –LordPeterII (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LordPeterII, sorry, was headed out of town, wanted to get this nominated before I was on the road for several days in a row. Yes, I do want to add the image, and I'll do a QPQ asap, thanks! Valereee (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image provided, QPQ started but awaiting reply from nom. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article is certainly fine, but I'm unsure about the image. As far as I know, some more explicit images were voted inappropriate for the main page, even though we normally don't censor. I personally would not be opposed to running the picture, but I believe we may need some discussion or consensus on this. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Oh and yeah Valereee nominating it was totally fine, I was only pointing out to the reviewer that they should not have approved so fast without waiting for the QPQ.) –LordPeterII (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LordPeterII, no worries, I'm all for scrutinizing! Valereee (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about:
    • ALT1 ... that critics objected to Dangers of the Mail (detail pictured), alleging government support of lewdness in the 1930s and creation of a hostile work environment in the 2000s?
  • Mostly just a voice change and some minor ce. I was having a hard time with "was objected to for" in ALT0. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ALT1b ... that critics objected to Dangers of the Mail (detail pictured) in the 1930s for government support of lewdness and in the 2000s for creating a hostile work environment?
I like getting rid of 'was objected to', but prefer ALT1b as tighter. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Salvus, could you review ALT1b? I think this may be languishing due to the ?. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, the Alt1b is fine. Dr Salvus 20:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Salvus 07:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]