Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Joy Whitehead


 * 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 Alex Shih (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Leslie Joy Whitehead

 * ... that Leslie Joy Whitehead, a Canadian woman, enlisted in the Serbian Army as a man so that she might get closer to the front lines in World War I?   Source: "According to Dr Catherine Corbett of the Scottish Women's Hospitals Second Serbian unit, this female engineer had been sent to Kruševac with the Serbian army within which she had ‘enlisted as a man.’" (Corbett, C. L. (1916). Diary in Serbia. Taylor, Garrett, Evan & Co. Ltd. p. 9.) and "According to contemporary newspaper sources, Jo was ‘acting as a lieutenant in the Veterinary Corps of the Serbian Army, having given up hospital work’ so ‘that she might get closer to the firing line’ when Serbia's occupation began" (“Canadian Nurse Bulgar Prisoner”, The Toronto Daily Star, Friday January 7th 1916, p. 2.)
 * Reviewed: Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Train 18
 * Comment: I managed to save it from being deleted permanently by getting to licence the article she wrote off-wiki under creative commons, so that the text could get reused here free of copyright concerns. Don't be surprised if earwig pulls a flag, there is a notice at the bottom of the text after the references at http://www.ebritic.com/?p=703462. It is actually 8 days old, but spent the last couple days having been deleted while copyright issues were sorted out, and was just recently restored, so I hope that might be overlooked (I would have nominated it within the 7 day limit if it wasn't for the copyright issues that needed to be sorted out first). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Created by NataSOfficial (talk). Nominated by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) at 22:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC).


 * Please note that while public domain text is allowed, it does not count toward the 1500-character minimum amount of text for a DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that the source in question technically is not public domain, it is Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA), also, the article in question was only first published a month or so ago, and was published by the same author as wrote the Wikipedia article. It is still "new and original" content, per the intent behind the DYK rules forbidding public domain content counting toward length. While technically this article could be turned down because of this, it would be enforcing the letter of the rule while ignoring the spirit. I don't think it is currently possible to significantly expand the article further, as Natasha has done a fantastic job of thoroughly researching available sources and information. Given the original publication is also very new, obscure and low profile, and by the same author as the wikipedia article, I think it is best if we ignore this complication. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  08:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I used Earwig to compare the article and the source. Of the 6582 characters (1114 words) readable prose size in the article, 2028 characters (336 words) is original text which counts for DYK. This meets the 1500 character minimum amount of text requirement. The rest of the article is copied from an existing source and thus does not count towards DYK.
 * Noting that Earwig gives a very high copyvio certainty to the licenced source which was copied, there is no other copyvio detected.
 * I don't consider either of these will block approval. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Article
 * Review.
 * New: Yes, technically a day out, rule D13 permits leeway.
 * N.B. Article created to mainspace at 18:37, 31 October 2018. Nomination dated 22:11, 8 November 2018.

Hook Other All good. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Long enough: Yes. As explained in more detail above.
 * Within policy.
 * Neutral: Yes
 * Citations: Assuming good faith on numerous offline sources.
 * Copyvio: None.
 * Format: 153 characters.
 * Content.
 * Interesting: Yes.
 * Cited: Yes.
 * In article: Yes, twice
 * Neutral: Yes.
 * QPQ: completed.


 * I've done some minor editing on the article in regards to style and sourcing. Genealogy sourcing would not be acceptable on a hook, and the same information was in sourcing that was already in the article. — Maile  (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * that source was added after my nomination... but yes I agree. The hook is not cited to genealogical sources so should not be an issue. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  14:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)