Did you know nomination[edit]

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) 06:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Chris.sherlock (talk). Self-nominated at 02:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough, long enough, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Images are fair use. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Hook is interesting; I just tightened the hook with some commas. Offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. I'm just wondering what those squiggles are at the beginning of each footnote? Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are note labels that link to the source in the bibliography. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources[edit]

Newspaper articles

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating this article..

Abishe (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children's names and infobox[edit]

The infobox wikilinks are not overlinked. They are quite reasonable to wikilink summarised info, and not have people have to hunt around the article. The children's names are also quite acceptable, in fact it even says so in Template:Infobox person. Given I have literally spent days and days on research for this article and am the sole author so far, I think I'm in a reasonable place to make a judgement call on this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template documentation states: Birth place and death place should use format "city, administrative region, country" and should not link country names; Death cause should only be included when significant to subject's notability; Children, parents, and other relatives should be named only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted in the article, her children were absolutely relevant in her life. She featured them in publications such as the Women's Weekly. They are mentioned in the press a number of times and the ADB gives them a special mention.
You probably have a point about her sister, but her brother did play a big part in her life. I should probably note this. Her parents are relevant because of where they came from, and I note the ADB always includes them. It’s not a privacy issue, as they are widely known and are deceased anyway. The dictionary of Sydney also makes the point of naming her parents. It would not be a complete source of information if the parents weren’t named!
I have already de-linked the country, but in fact the nationality should indeed be linked. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you believe about where the parents came from makes them significant? We base our inclusion on our own guidelines, not what ADB may or may not do. Nothing currently in the article supports the inclusion of any of the relatives in the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
do what you need to do then. I think I’ve contributed more than enough to this article. If you are trying to dishearten contributors, you’re doing a good job of it. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won’t revert you, but I am seriously discouraged and considering that if this is the way I’m going to be treated I might take a break from writing articles about Australian women. Even a simple acknowledgement that I made my edits in good faith right now would be greatly encouraging. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is disputing that you are editing in good faith. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think I’m a bit depressed and anxious at the moment. I try hard to combat it but I’m afraid tonight it may have affected me more than I realised. I apologise for any behaviour that may have been unacceptable. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Why are the date templates being removed? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so in this one I’m mistaken. I entirely missed the bit that said it should be used in templates. That’s on me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Under-utilised”[edit]

In Australia, we use the term “under-utilised” when we speak of someone not getting enough work. Under-used is not really used very much. I’ve been told that our language is considered ugly, but there you have it. It’s part of our dialect of English and I feel sad that we could be considered uncouth and our language dreadful. I personally love our language differences. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got that idea. Tony (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may have taken it the wrong way, but you called the word ugly. I realise now it may be seen as such outside of the Australian context. I apologise for misunderstanding you. I’ll be honest, I think I’m a bit off at the moment. I probably need some sleep. Sorry. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Em-dash[edit]

Why are people reverting entity encoded en-dashes and en-dashes? The general principle is that the initial style used is the one kept. I checked MOS:DASH and it’s pretty clear that entity encoding is quite acceptable. I have now been threatened on my talk page for using these! And yet I literally write the whole article! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take back the threat comment. Sorry. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink changed[edit]

I have now twice had the following wikilink changed: J. Walter Thompson Australia Pty Ltd when I feel it it should be J. Walter Thompson Australia Pty Ltd. There is no such company as the Australia Pry Ltd any more, so I feel this is a bit misleading to link to something that doesn’t exist any more! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I am happy to be convinced about this point. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New template removed[edit]

The ((nee)) template is being used, and I see no consensus that this template should not be used. It has now been removed twice. Why is this the case? If the template should not be used, then feel free to take it TFD, but until then please don’t remove it as it’s perfectly acceptable. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates parameters removed[edit]

Can some explain why the publisher and publication-place parameters are being removed from the article? Tony1 can you explain why you removed these? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let User:Ohconfucius explain that – he's the expert. But I must say your writing is pretty good, and we need more articles on women. I've only read the first paragraph. This sentence is a problem: "During the Second World War her company experienced hardships due to a general public suspicious of inquisitive representatives polling public sentiment about the war and Prime Minister, along with a general reluctance amongst companies to spend money on market research which they found to be unnecessary in a time of rationing." Tony (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tony. So I can improve this can you let me know more what the issue is? FWIW, I’ve referenced this in the article. She was literally reported to police, brought in for questioning and threatened with arrest. A number of her interviewers were also detained. The reference is in the article, should I add a footnote? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn’t bothered showing up on talk. But the publisher is important for these articles, because they are no longer owned by ACP but were at the time. Fairfax doesn’t exist any more, but is Nine Entertainment Corporation. I’ve put them back. Note that it says “normally”, not “never”. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink removed[edit]

I was probably being way too stubborn and probably referring to practices long since discarded. I am a stubborn person by nature, but I am aware of this so after a few kind words I’ve reconsidered that I was being an ass and have removed the wikilink from Australia. Admittedly reluctantly but Wikipedia runs on consensus and I should have bowed to it more gracefully. I aplogise for being combative about this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: FWIW, I do listen even when I’m being dickish. I’m afraid you may have caught the brunt of it. I’m sorry about that. It was actually your comments that made me change my mind. It happens sometimes :-) - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

""@Chris.sherlock: – no problem. I'll go through the article slowly. Please scrutinise and tell me if you have any problems with small changes I make. Tony (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Tony1:, I appreciate this. Thanks for helping me by collaborating on this article! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name[edit]

The birth name is different to her common name. Her common name on the info box is “Sylvia Ashby”. Her full birth name is “Sylvia Rose Ashby”! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

"... she still found it a difficult start. She later recounted that "business executives ... appeared to know little and to care even less" about market research,[12] and this was further compounded by prevailing views of women at the time.[1] To counter this, Ashby became a tireless promoter of market research in a market that did not yet see the value of such research, let alone paying for it."

There are unclear meanings here.

Tony (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll get these fixed. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1 is the rewrite any better? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the request for feedback here, not a formal review because I'm not up to date on the criteria but a few comments:

Hope this is useful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was, I appreciate you taking the time to review the article. I'm genuinely not dismissing your feedback (I realise that it may look that way), but I just can't find the sources to clarify or fill in the gaps on this one. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories