Template:Did you know nominations/Monte delle doti

Monte delle doti

 * ... that having unmarried adult daughters at home was seen as such a "shame and danger" in Renaissance Northern Italy that a dowry fund was established to aid fathers in marrying them off?
 * Reviewed: Gibraltar (Wilmington, Delaware)

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self nominated at 23:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Suitably recent, long enough and appear to be free of copyvios and other policy issues. Hook is verified by source (although a link would have been nice; it's this, for reference) and suitably engaging, but a bit long (260 characters in wikitext) - I'd suggest: ALT1 ... that the "shame and danger" of unmarried daughters during the Italian Renaissance prompted the creation of a dowry fund to help marry them off? (198 characters) instead. QPQ's done; assuming there's no objection to the alt hook I'd say this is ready to go. Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  12:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The original hook is not too long, however. This tool, one of the recommended ones, confirms that it contains 184 characters (200 being the limit). I am afraid that the alternative hook sounds a bit odd and is not entirely accurate, given that unmarried daughters living as nuns were not perceived as a risk or as something to be ashamed of. On the other hand, it can indeed be shortened (thank you for the idea!):


 * ALT2: ... that having unmarried adult daughters at home was seen as such a "shame and danger" in Renaissance Northern Italy that a dowry fund was created to help marry them off? Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg As Kevin McE points out on WT:DYK, "That quote [referring to 'shame and danger'] is cited in the article as the reason for a law limiting the size of dowries, not the motivation for creating the fund. Pull and formulate a hook that does not simply push together two unrelated elements of the article with an unsustainable claim of causality." Indeed, Kevin doesn't go far enough: the "shame and danger" in the Venice law has nothing whatever to do with the Florentine dowry law that is the subject of the article. Additionally, the hook facts, problematic as they are, are not supported by inline sourcing after the fact in question; even if the inline citations are repeated later in the paragraph, they must be with the hook fact as well. I'm also wondering about the initial statement of the final "Female sexuality" section, "Female sexuality was the basic premise of the legislation that enabled the fund", since the quotes that follow doesn't seem to give adequate support to its assertion, and the final sentence certainly doesn't. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg No response or action on the above; creator has been actively editing, but not here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)