The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• ... that Anna Green Winslow wrote a series of letters to her mother that she combined into a diary, which provides a rare window into the life of an affluent teenage girl in colonial Boston?

• Comment: Not my article, but a nice one moved from AfC.

Created/expanded by Missivonne (talk). Nominated by David1217 (talk) at 16:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• No QPQ required because nominator =/= writer. It appears neutral enough. Plagiarism check [1] [2] no concerns. Hook is properly formatted.
• Article not fully supported by inline citations. (On a personal note, I dislike ibid because if some one adds another source, it makes it difficult to know what was actually intended to be sourced.) For clarification, Winslow, Anna Green (1894). Alice Morse Earle. ed (in English) (eBook). is what [16] ^ Ibid. supports? Two different Winslow books are cited. ^ Winslow, p. 121. Which is is that? ^ Winslow, p. 6 Which one is that? ^ Winslow, p. 7 Which one is that? ^ Winslow, p. 71 Which one is that?
  • I'll ask the writer about that, as she knows more about the topic than I do. In fact, you should probably turn this nomination over to her. David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Neutrality wise, something about this just feels... off. It would almost make more sense as Diary of Anna Green Winslow. There is primary source reporting in the article describing the contents of the journal to write about the subject and framing it that way, rather than laying this information out as fact.
  • Same thing. David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Hooked fact not supported by inline citations. --LauraHale (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarified the hook. I think it's cited now. David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Article still needs more citations where fact tags are. --LauraHale (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Article fully sourced. Ibids removed so it is clear what sources are being referred to. Hook found in article and supported by sources. Big improvement. Bravo. Good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats to the author—she's done a great job. David1217 ^{What I've done} 01:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)