Template:Did you know nominations/Janet Colquhoun


 * 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: rejected by Victuallers (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Janet Colquhoun
* ... that Janet Colquhoun had blind faith in her work?
 * ... that religious writer Janet Colquhoun objected to take a train running on a Sunday and went by horse instead?


 * Reviewed: QPQ = Endell Street
 * Comment: another Woman writer article

Created by Victuallers (talk). Self nominated at 09:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment: Alternative hook, the one suggested is not appropriate. Serten (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg New article with over 3,000 characters, interesting hook with given inline citation. QPQ done, good to go! --Khadar Khani (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have pulled this hook from the queue, for the reasons described at WT:DYK. Fram (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In an attempt to save the original hook, the article creator is now inserting quotes that never were in her books in the first place. This is desecnding into a mess that is better kept of the main page completely. introduces "she concluded that "blind faith offers the only hope from the the 'bottomless pit'. She was a philantropist who was involved with several good causes and her writing notes that the "fruits of faith will be evident in good work"." Never mind the lack of a closing quote on the first "quotation", her conclusion, presented as a quote, is something that she never said or wrote, but that a contemporary critic said about her work. "Her writing notes"? No, her writing doesn't note that, again it is the conclusion from another writer. Presenting quotes as if they are her words, when they aren't, is probably one of the worst things one can do to support one's position. Fram (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

- agree with Fram "desecnding into a mess". I think that we both need to step away as calm voices are required. Fram has already edited the article to support her position and she should realise that COI prevents her from discussing the nomination further. Her involvement is not "one of the worst things one can do to support one's position" but it is fairly desperate. It is not important whether we use the original hook as there has been too much silly discussion. However her writing notes (as a 3rd party source says) that she concluded that "blind faith offers the only hope from the the 'bottomless pit'" Victuallers (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you try to quote someone in an article, at least get the quotes right. That at least shouldn't be too hard... And your article still claims that " her writing notes that the "fruits of faith will be evident in good work".", which isn't noted in her writing, but again (though not literally as you quote it) in Hoggs... The way you have rewritten the article now suggests that Hogg quotes Colquhoun, which obviously isn't the case. And my change to the article was to make it more factual. The way you had presented the train vs. horse incident was not only badly written, but also completely incorrect. My change, for easy reference:. I do love it though that if I criticize a hook and don't change the article, I get flak. If I criticize a hook and do change the article, like here, I get flak as well. I thnk I'll just continue like before in that case, and not bother too much with criticism from people whose hook got rightly pulled. Fram (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review required. Nominator requesting a second opinion. Fuebaey (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I'm still seeing issues with our article twisting the sources. E.g. our article says she became an evangelist after being influenced by Wilberforce; the source for that says she was an evangelist, and also that while young she had been influenced by Wilberforce, but does not say that influence from Wilberforce was the cause of her evangelism nor that it came first. Our article says that she and her husband were theorized to be the models for certain fictional characters; the article says only that the playwright may have introduced aspects of her relation with her husband into the corresponding characters, but not that they were the models for other aspects of the same characters nor that they were the only models. Our article says (in the context of the college) that she was a philanthropist; this is not sourced. Our article says her college was founded at her own house but the source says it was held in a different cottage. The contrast between her reception at the college and her earlier attempts was not drawn by the article and appears to be WP:SYN. Later it says she published anonymously until her husband died, but the source mentions only one much earlier anonymous publication and the inference that it was her husband keeping her from using her name appears to be WP:SYN again. And I'm not convinced that the source is adequate to justify the wikilink to sola fide, a technical term in theology which appears to be carry a more specific meaning than the necessity of faith for salvation that the source talks about. So I think this is still somewhat problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a look at this David. It is appreciated. Its a long time since I wrote this so I wuill need to check the points that your raise. You do realise that you can edit this article and correct it to your interpretation. If anything the only word I would change in your review is "twist" which could be interpreted as if there is a motive for manipulating the biography of a nearly forgotten Scottish writer. However as your review points out it is possible to misunderstand a reading of a document so I will move on. I'll see if I can look at this article or get an unbiased editor to assist. So thanks again for your time, and do feel free to edit. This is a collective project. Victuallers (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been a week since this was last reviewed but no action has been made on the issues raised. Given that it's been more than two months since this was first nominated, I'm considering closing this nomination. Are you going to work on this in the near future or should I tag this as stale? Fuebaey (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)