Template:Did you know nominations/Angie Epifano


 * 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  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Angie Epifano

 * ... that Angie Epifano gained national and international attention after she wrote an essay on her personal experience with sexual assault?
 * Reviewed: Newport Creek

Created by I am One of Many (talk). Self nominated at 06:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, good citations, no copyvio/close paraphrasing found when comparing with the sources. But, the "international" attention seems to be just one article on an Australian website that appears to be a republication from Slate (a US site). I'd like to see more than that to merit "and international". Edwardx (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for reviewing the article. I don't see the similarity between the Australian website article and the Slate article.  They are by two different authors and they diverge in content.  That being said, one article seems scant evidence for international attention.  The USA Today article states that the essay has received millions of international page views.  I added that.  Do you think it is enough or would you like me to propose an alternative hook? I am One of Many (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Slate article in your references is a different one. The Beverly Donofrio Slate article that is republished on the Australian site is []. As for "the millions of international page views", we should bear in mind that the concept "international" subsumes "national", and that the vast majority of those international hits could be American. US Today is perhaps not the most rigorous of publications. As you suggest, "international attention" suggests media attention rather than just hits. I would think that some sort of phrasing along the lines of "gained widespread media attention and millions of page views" could avoid the whole national/international issue and still be as punchy. Edwardx (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I culled the Slate article out of my reading list early on partly because I already had a Slate article and it was only motivated by Annie Epifano's case.  Then when I got down to reading all the articles, I failed to notice that it was reprinted at the Australian website.  We want the hook to be punchy but in the best taste we can for this subject, so I like your idea.  I'll change the article, based on the sources, to fit this alternative hook.


 * Alt1: ... that Angie Epifano gained widespread media attention and millions of page views after she wrote an essay on her personal experience of sexual assault?


 * I am One of Many (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I'm happy to sign off on ALT1. Made one small tweak, I think "of" sounds better/clearer than "with". Edwardx (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)