Talk:Dangers of the Mail

A fact from Dangers of the Mail appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 December 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that critics objected to Dangers of the Mail in the 1930s for government support of lewdness and in the 2000s for creating a hostile work environment?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dangers of the Mail.

Wikipedia

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Nudity Low‑importance

	Nudity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of nudity and naturism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NudityWikipedia:WikiProject NudityTemplate:WikiProject Nuditynudity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

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 RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Detail from Dangers of the Mail

~~... that Dangers of the Mail (detail pictured) was objected to for government support of lewdness in the 1930s and for creating a hostile work environment in the 2000s?~~ Source: ~~tk, having difficulty with Taylor & Francis for some reason, headedout of town and wanted to get this nominated before it was late~~https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=b9bcdb46-a122-4eb5-b25f-658a46749f4a%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=136642390&db=ufh "Early criticism of the artwork centered on the mural's unreliable historicity and lewd content" and "the dispute reignited in the 2000s when employees of the EPA threatened litigation on the grounds that the painting contributed to a hostile work environment." and https://www.csbj.com/archives/city-could-lay-claim-to-dangerous-work/article_4e7e45c8-6c9e-50c9-b899-0f590eb7dd53.html "many were appalled by government-funded female nudity."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Caroline Harrison (not complete yet)
- Comment to promoter: Probably needs its image. ~~Probably should appear not on or too close to American Thanksgiving (Nov 24). No objection to a cropped image on the lower right of the main image, where the reeeeeally problematic images are.~~

Created by Valereee (talk). Self-nominated at 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good. Promoted. Dr Salvus 22:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... no? There's a QPQ missing here, @Dr Salvus. Also, @Valereee, what did you mean to say, do you want to run with an image? –LordPeterII (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LordPeterII, sorry, was headed out of town, wanted to get this nominated before I was on the road for several days in a row. Yes, I do want to add the image, and I'll do a QPQ asap, thanks! Valereee (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image provided, QPQ started but awaiting reply from nom. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is certainly fine, but I'm unsure about the image. As far as I know, some more explicit images were voted inappropriate for the main page, even though we normally don't censor. I personally would not be opposed to running the picture, but I believe we may need some discussion or consensus on this. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh and yeah Valereee nominating it was totally fine, I was only pointing out to the reviewer that they should not have approved so fast without waiting for the QPQ.) –LordPeterII (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LordPeterII, no worries, I'm all for scrutinizing! Valereee (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about:
- ALT1 ... that critics objected to Dangers of the Mail (detail pictured), alleging government support of lewdness in the 1930s and creation of a hostile work environment in the 2000s?
Mostly just a voice change and some minor ce. I was having a hard time with "was objected to for" in ALT0. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ALT1b ... that critics objected to Dangers of the Mail (detail pictured) in the 1930s for government support of lewdness and in the 2000s for creating a hostile work environment?

I like getting rid of 'was objected to', but prefer ALT1b as tighter. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Salvus, could you review ALT1b? I think this may be languishing due to the ?. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, the Alt1b is fine. Dr Salvus 20:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Salvus 07:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]