Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Hanna McCormick


 * 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 valereee (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Hanna McCormick

 * ... that Congresswoman Ruth Hanna McCormick became the first female major party nominee for U.S. Senate when she defeated incumbent Senator Charles S. Deneen in the 1930 Illinois Republican Primary? Source: Mrs. McCormick Routes Deneen in Illinois Primary
 * ALT1: ... that Ruth Hanna McCormick received more votes when she was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1928 than any other person elected to the house that year?? Source: Congresswomen to talk on WMAL
 * Reviewed: Rachel Koopmans

Improved to Good Article status by Knope7 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article was promoted to GA status within the last seven days, is over the required prose size and has no copyvio concerns. Both hooks are interesting and supported by reliable sources with inline citations. User has provided a QPQ review to meet the requirement, good to go. Kosack (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I find both hooks pretty pedestrian. This is a GA; can you provide a juicier hook? Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm perplexed by this. Would it help to trim hook 1? The first woman to receive a major party's Senate nomination is a huge achievement and hook worthy to me. The fact that she defeated a sitting senator to win the nomination underscores the difficulty of what she did but it's not crucial. Knope7 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ping earlier so I am doing it now. Knope7 (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * it's interesting to you because you're American, right? But it's not going to be interesting to readers in other countries, and frankly, we've had our share of women "firsts" at DYK. It's also very wordy. The best you could shorten it to is:
 * ALT2: ... that Ruth Hanna McCormick was the first woman to run on a major party ticket for the United States Senate? -- which isn't so interesting, is it? Are you sure you can't pull something else hooky out of the article that will entice readers? Something about her relationships with major American political players? Something about her own family's immersion in politics? Something else? Yoninah (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite. It's not that she just ran, it's that won a primary to get there. It's pretty clear we have a different interest in celebrating the achievements of groundbreaking women, which is fine. If there are a lot of women "firsts" at DYK, that's probably a sign I'm not alone in finding them interesting. I'll note ALT1 does not rely on her being a woman. I would not support a hook that relies on her connections to major American politicians because of how that feeds into a larger problem for how women's biographies are often presented on Wikipedia. Tying her to American political figures does not solve one of the reasons you have rejected my prior hooks, that it won't interest readers in other countries. With all that being said, here are two attempts, below. Knope7 (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ALT 3: ... that no woman was chosen as a major political party's nominee for United States Senate until Ruth Hanna McCormick won her state's primary in 1930?
 * ALT 4: ... that Ruth Hanna McCormick organized women's clubs across Illinois then mobilized those clubs to win a seat in the United States House of Representatives?


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed for ALT hooks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg for original hook and ALT3, with a preference for ALT3 due to cutting out unneeded verbiage like her opponent. I don't see Yoninah's complaint as fixable; if a reader is truly uninterested in US politics, this article isn't for them anyway.  For readers with any sort of passing familiarity, the original hook as well as ALT3 are quite interesting indeed.  ALT4 is NOT approved; if we wanted to be really nitpicky, it would be something like "mobilized those clubs as part of her campaign", but that just makes the hook drag, and it's burying the lede - original / ALT3 are way more interesting.  I'm not a fan of ALT1 either; many states didn't / still don't report results for uncontested elections, which skews the results.  SnowFire (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, . I agree that ALT3 is the best of the lot, and have struck the hooks that you didn't approve. Best, Yoninah (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good then., sounds like ALT3 is good to go. SnowFire (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)