This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
A fact from Women Philosophers in the Long Nineteenth Century appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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 Cielquiparle (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... that one reviewer for the book Women Philosophers in the Long Nineteenth Century was concerned by the book's lack of poetry? Source: Source: [1] - "Although the volume contains various genres, including notes and parts of epistolary novels, it does not, as Nassar and Gjesdal note, contain either poetry, dramas, or letters. As stated earlier, it is the nature of any volume that seeks to cover a period that it cannot do justice to the full variety of thinkers and ideas that fluctuated around a specific time; something is always left out. It would, however, in this case, have been rather interesting to get an insight into the very materiality of (some) women’s philosophy; material in the sense of the different formats that their ideas took. This would also have granted further insights into how philosophical ideas alter when published in letters, novels, or treatises."
New enough, long enough, neutral, well-cited (summary presumably sourced to the book itself), earwig only picks up quotes and titles, no close paraphrasing, QPQ done. The hook could use some improvement – I like the underlying idea, but repeating "the book" twice is clunky, and I don't know if "concerned" is supported by the source; the reviewer merely says "it would have been rather interesting" if such formats were included. – Teratix₵ 03:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix: Thanks for the review. Would the following hook be better?
I've removed the book and replaced concerned with let down, which better fits what Ardnal was saying in the passage. Cheers! :3 F4U (they/it) 03:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 good to go. – Teratix₵ 03:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
New enough, long enough, neutral, well-cited (summary presumably sourced to the book itself), earwig only picks up quotes and titles, no close paraphrasing, QPQ done. The hook could use some improvement – I like the underlying idea, but repeating "the book" twice is clunky, and I don't know if "concerned" is supported by the source; the reviewer merely says "it would have been rather interesting" if such formats were included. – Teratix ₵ 03:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
