Talk:Carrie Swain

Not the first blackface performer
Staples 1984, p. 58 says: This in no way says that she was, or was possibly, the first female blackface performer. It says one newspaper described her as among the first, and Staples says "whether or not she was the first," which means Staples is not saying she was the first, or even maybe the first. So I've removed from the article any claims that she was the first female blackface performer. I kept the line about her being possibly the first woman to attempt acrobatic comedy in blackface (but that's not the same as being the first woman in blackface). Levivich (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree of your reading the source. What do you think "whether or not she was the first" means?  Staples was clearly indicating she may have been first woman to perform in blackface, but its not known for certain. This is exactly what the hook said but in different words so as to avoid close paraphrasing/ plagiarism. 4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What words in this quote convey "first woman to perform in blackface"? Levivich (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To me "whether or not she was the first", was a reference back to the preceding sentence about being among the first women to wear burnt cork. However. I get what you are saying. It's possible that the author was referring to a specific type of blackface acrobat comedy role, as opposed to blackface as a broader construct in the opening quote. The way its pieced together with the newspaper quote about being among the earliest to wear burnt cork, in combination with opening line on being this first in a specific type of blackface part is a bit confusing. I suppose to err on the side of caution would be best. 4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree it's totally confusing with all the layers of qualifiers, but yeah I think the closest we can get in Wikivoice based on this source is "among the first female blackface performers", and "possibly first to do knock-about work." By the way, I don't mean to get hung up on all this hullabaloo about a single sentence, I should also say the obvious: great article and thank you for writing it! Levivich (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Unfortunately it looks like it won't get seen, as it wasn't replaced with a different hook, and it doesn't look like they will let another run. Feeling a bit dejected about it, given the amount of time I spent digging through years of newspaper archives to write this one.4meter4 (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's any consolation, it was seen for 12 hours if not the full 24 -- and when DYK runs twice a day, 12 hours is all any article gets. But more importantly, this looks to me like a clear and easy GA pass as it sits today, because it solidly hits all the WP:GACRIT. I'd encourage you to nominate it, and then it can run on DYK again with a new hook. Levivich (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * then it can run on DYK again with a new hook: Unfortunately, it's far more likely that a reviewer or admin will shoot down any new nomination in the near- or even middle-term on the grounds of WP:DYKNEW: An article is ineligible for DYK if it has in the past five years appeared on the Main Page as a bold link at DYK, unless the article was then deleted as a copyright violation. I would support an exception be made for a pulled hook, but I'm not very optimistic about such not getting objected to. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 04:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh. :-( Well, I agree about the exception, but I also share your lack of optimism. Double :-(. Levivich (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)