Template:Did you know nominations/Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising

 * ... that Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising is an anthology of 177 short biographies of African American men written by William J. Simmons published in 1887? Source: Andrews, William L. The Politics of African-American Ministerial Autobiography from Reconstruction to the 1920s in Johnson, Paul E. African-American Christianity: Essays in History. Univ of California Press, 1994. p114-115 https://books.google.com/books?id=oQyYAwQqspcC&lpg=PA115&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * ALT1: ... that Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising by William J. Simmons, one of the first an anthologies of biographies of African American men, was published in 1887? Source: Andrews, William L. The Politics of African-American Ministerial Autobiography from Reconstruction to the 1920s in Johnson, Paul E. African-American Christianity: Essays in History. Univ of California Press, 1994. p114-115 https://books.google.com/books?id=oQyYAwQqspcC&lpg=PA115&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * ALT2: ... that Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising is an anthology of 177 short biographies of African American men, most of whom were born as slaves, written by William J. Simmons published in 1887?
 * ALT3: ... that in 1887 William J. Simmons published Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising, an anthology of 177 short biographies of African American men, most of whom were born slaves?
 * Comment: Over the past few months I've written or expanded most of these 177 biographies (as a result, all 177 currently have articles). The article is really about 2000 characters, but I've added the books table of contents as a way to link to wikipedia pages for each of the individuals covered, and that extends the article to over 30,000 characters. The TOC is quoted exactly, so there is some anachronistic language in that section - perhaps it should be transwikied to wikisource and be replaced with a more standard list. This is my second DYK, so no QPQ is required, but I'd like to try to review a DYK.
 * Comment: Over the past few months I've written or expanded most of these 177 biographies (as a result, all 177 currently have articles). The article is really about 2000 characters, but I've added the books table of contents as a way to link to wikipedia pages for each of the individuals covered, and that extends the article to over 30,000 characters. The TOC is quoted exactly, so there is some anachronistic language in that section - perhaps it should be transwikied to wikisource and be replaced with a more standard list. This is my second DYK, so no QPQ is required, but I'd like to try to review a DYK.

Created/expanded by Smmurphy (talk). Self-nominated at 18:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol voting keep.svg Length, Date, and Earwigs check (Earwigs went nuts over the TOC in the article however the book is PD-Old and attributed in a cite so it is not a concern for copyright). Offline refs are AGF and QPQ is exempt, both hooks approved (ALT1 is partially verified with an online cite).  Mifter (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Sorry, I don't find the hook hooky at all. Could you find some other detail to focus on aside from the publication date? Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is too bad. The book is most notable for being the first or one of the first general anthologies of biographies of African-Americans, and for the number of biographies included. I suppose not everyone will find that to be very hooky. If you don't think the hook qualifies, I'd be happy for suggestions. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added an ALT2, basically throwing everything in and seeing if anything sticks. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, IMO it still has too many dry facts–book title, author, publication date. I'd like to suggest some alts, but I'm very tired right now; I hope to respond back tomorrow. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * or others, I'm not sure what the status of this is. I've reordered the "dry" facts to create an ALT3, but in the end the article is about an anthology of biographies and not a dancing bear, so let me know if there is no hope. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, thanks for the ping. I'm afraid I've been sick, but now I'm back. I went through the article and reorganized the presentation. I noted one place where the information does not appear in the source. I also found URLs for all of the references! Next time. please add the URLs and ISBN numbers for books where applicable; it really helps the DYK reviewer check for sourcing and close paraphrasing.
 * Shorter is always better for hooks. What do you think about this shortening of ALT2:
 * ALT2a: ... that the 1887 book Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising presents 177 biographies of African-American men, most of whom were born as slaves?
 * Here are some other ideas for hooks:
 * ALT4: ... that Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising, published in 1887 by William J. Simmons, has been called the "single most authoritative work on nineteenth-century African Americans"?
 * ALT5: ... that the biographies presented in the 1887 work Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising by William J. Simmons show the leading role religious figures played in African-American life? Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of those two, I prefer ALT2a and ALT4. Perhaps go with 4? Thank you for your help! Smmurphy(Talk) 21:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg You're welcome. Since I wrote ALT4, could another editor review it? Then the prep promoter can choose from ALT2a or ALT4. Pinging . Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

- Both ALT2a and ALT4 look good to me. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)