Template:Did you know nominations/Jonathan Elliot (publisher)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 PrimalMustelid talk 23:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Jonathan Elliot (publisher)

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Generalissima (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 36 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC).

Short enough, I guess interesting to an American audience (although I, as an Englishman, haven't heard of either of them), and sourced... to [6], the third of the references for that sentence, although I'm not quite sure how you get ACLS from Johnson, Allen; Malone, Dumas, eds. (1931). Dictionary of American Biography. Vol. 6. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Full review needed.--Launchballer 20:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
It was written by the American Council of Learned Societies. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the article should make that clear.--Launchballer 21:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Fair's fair, fixed. 21:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Full review needed.--Launchballer 21:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I shall review this. Please be patient, though, as there is currently very slow broadband in my village, and I may be temporarily cut off. Storye book (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thank you for this jolly good article - written in beautiful, elegant English, worthy of Henry James, I might say.

  • The ALT0 hook would be fine if it made clear who the victim of the insult is - otherwise it's just one one random bloke insulting another random bloke. Could you please insert his trade in front of his name, e.g. "newspaperman Jonathan Elliot" or whatever? Newspapermen get challenged all the time for being brave challengers of the status quo, or just mouthy - which is what makes them interesting. And there is nothing wrong with the words "penurious" and "venal" - they are jolly good insults (try them on your mum next time she wants to borrow your allowance back cos she's skint). It would weaken the hook to rephrase them - this is not Simple Wikipedia.
  • Hook fact is borne out, next to the fact in the article, by the online Dictionary of National Biography.

When this issue is resolved, this would be good to go, with either hook. Storye book (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  • @Storye book: Thank you for your kind words! I'm a little bit confused, do you think the ALT1 needs further expansion? Since I think that's ultimately the stronger hook here. If an internationalisation is needed, we can just rephrase it to President John Quincy Adams. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Not at all. I am cheering on ALT0 for its witty insult, and I am suggesting that we further identify Eliot (as the article's subject, and the subject of the insult) as a newspaperman in ALT0. I am not interested in improving ALT1 further, though you are welcome to do so if you wish. I don't think we need to further identify Adams, because it would distract from our hero Eliot. Just my opinion. Storye book (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I think going with ALT1 as the hook would be best then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Is that a typo, or do you really mean ALT1? ALT1 is by far the weaker hook, because "denounced" is boring, whereas "penurious and venal" is very funny and very sad, and reflects on the speaker, rather than on the victim of the insult. "Penurious" as commonly used in those days, meant being in the habit of having no money whatsoever, due to stupidity, laziness, bad luck, gullibility to fraudsters and all the rest of it: basically a loser. "Venal" as used in that era tended to mean constantly having one's mind on money, being greedy for money, and acting in a money-grasping manner. The combination of those words could of course be directed at a feckless and greedy person, but was more commonly directed at the poor and the starving, i.e. those who were not a financial success, and consequently were not the epitome of the American Dream. But the combination could also imply a suspicion of miserliness and corruption, i.e. pretending to be poor and asking too-high prices or demanding large bribes. So the insult "penurious and venal" could also be used by someone who grudged paying their bills, i.e. they were actually penurious and venal themselves, haha. Either way, like most insults, it reflects badly on the speaker, and not really on the victim.
  • So: (a) If you still insist on ALT1, I shall defer to your opinion as the nomintor, and I'll give the green tick - but with misgivings. Or: (b) If the above is a typo, and you really want ALT0, then please put some kind of indication of trade before Eliot's name in ALT0 and I'll give the green tick with a choice of either hook for the promoter. Storye book (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jonathan_Elliot_(publisher)&oldid=1220632889"