Template:Did you know nominations/Camille du Gast

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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Camille du Gast

(

)

... that hot air balloonist Camille du Gast (pictured) was the second woman to compete in an international motor race?

Created/expanded by Chienlit (talk). Self nom at 01:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed Church of St. Mary Draperis, Istanbul Chienlit (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Article

The article was new at the moment of nomination. It is long enough (17,154 characters). There are some problems connected with:

Reliable sources: Sources number 3 and 4 are blogs. Source number 6 is a Facebook page. Source number 17 is forum. Source number 26 is blog. Source number 13 (West Gippsland Gazette) and source number 10 (Auckland star) are Australian and New Zealand tabloids. There is a blog within external links too. Section about Animal welfare does not have reliable sources (supported only with sources 6 and 26 which are facebook page and blog). Section about Women's welfare does not have reliable sources (completely depend on sources 3 and 6 which are blog and facebook page). Nominator frequently used inherently nonreliable sources like blogs, forums and facebook page to support assertions that are in most cases already supported by reliable sources. The result is citation overkill because most assertions are supported with at least three and in some cases even with seven citations. Embedded links to external websites should not be used as a form of inline citation. There is one embedded link in La Femme au Masque section.
Copyright: I am concerned about copyright issue because there is a big (and completely unnecessary) quotation (574 characters) from recently published book (Fast ladies : female racing drivers, 1888-1970) about attempted murder of Camille du Gast.
Other: fortunately was the first woman to use a parachute. fortunately is a Weasel word.

Hook

The hook is not to long (158 characters). It is interesting and cited. I am afraid there is problem with sources for the hook. Assertion from the hook about her being "the first woman to make a parachute jump" correspond with " the first woman to use a parachute" from the text of the article. This assertion in the article is supported with three sources. Two of them are blog and facebook page. The remaining source says that according to some reports she became "the first woman to parachute". Here is a source which claim that another woman was the first to jump with parachute, in 1798. This source says that another woman was first in 1799. Conclusion: The hook is not accurate in part about parachute jump. The other part of the hook about her being the second woman to compete in international motor race is also problematic because it is supported with source number 1 and 7 which don't support such assertion, as far as I could see it. Having that in mind, I am not sure if I should AGF with two remaining (nonblogfacebook) sources on French. Facebook page even says in its title that she was the first, not second, woman to race on international level.

Conclusion: The topic of the article is interesting and I believe it is possible to present a hook which is accurate and cited. The existing hook is neither accurate or properly cited. The nominator should present a hook which is accurate and cited and to try to deal with some of above mentioned issues. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Responses, summarised piecemeal as edited/enacted. This may take many hours interspersed with 'real work'. I will remove this line when I think the response is complete. ... So please don't respond to this message until it is not here. :) Chienlit (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review.

Article

1 Reliable sources

- Blog sources 3 and 4 removed. They were the initial seeds of the article, but had already been superseded by the authoritative sources.

- Women's welfare - caveated {.{Source needed-April 2012}.}

- Redundant Facebook citations removed. Please note - This is a valid, well written article (about a blurry subject) that happens to be posted on facebook - it does not merit the 6 critical mentions in the above diatribe, one would be enough. It is important to review external sources based on their quality, not on dogma. Almost the whole of France has erroneously believed that she was the first driver.

- The criticism of The Nostalgia Forum as a reference is not valid. It clearly states (now even more clearly) that it is a searchable transcription of the photographic image of the 1906 newspaper held at the British Library (the immediately preceding reference).

- The criticism of the West Gippsland Gazette and the Auckland Star is not valid. They are contemporaneous sources held by the National Libraries of Australia and New Zealand. The article specifically states that they are proof of the world wide renown of her court cases - it does not rely on any significant detail from them.

- La Femme au Masque outdated embedded external link removed - superceded when pic was accepted on commons.

2 Copyright

- If the clearly labelled quote actually breaks copyright then I will happily remove it, but I believe such a dramatic and traumatic event - attempted matricidal assassination - was best brought home to the reader by Bouzanquet's prose rather than my dry wiki text.

3 Other:

- Weasel word - removed. ('Fortunately' is not a weasel word when used in relation to wearing a parachute when jumping from a balloon. :( )

Hook

- Hook shortened, but yet to replaced. Thus removing erroneous first parachute claim. She was a parachutist, but she missed being the first by 100 years.

To be continued.

I will write a comment within this review inspite nominator's wish to complete her comment first, because during next 10 days I will probably not be able to edit wikipedia at all or not enough to complete things I started.

The main problem of this nomination was the hook. Taking in consideration that the nominator removed erroneous assertion (about du Gast being the first woman to make a parachute jump) and also attended all other minor issues I think that this nomination is almost ready to be approved.

Below is the initiall hook I reviewed:

... that hot air balloonist Camille du Gast (pictured) was the first woman to make a parachute jump and the second woman to compete in an international motor race?

There is only one problem that probably is not a problem. There are four sources used to support the hook assertion. I used machine translation for two non English. I appologize if I did not look carefully enough, but I simply could not verify the assertion from the hook in all four presented sources.

Message to nominator: I would politely ask nominator to present the quotes from those four sources which support the hook assertion.

Message to other users: If nominator presents the quotes from the four sources (or one at least) which directly support the hook assertion and I do not reply within 24 hours please approve this nomination.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The hook is a bit of an issue. Most authoritative French sources wrongly interpolate du Gast's success in 1901 and bravura performance in 1903 as being France's/world's/media's first/leading/most glamorous/high profile female racing driver. But - the lower profile (racing under a pseudonym) of Hélène van Zuylen in 1898 simply trumps 1901 as 'first'. It was this dichotomy that inspired me to write both articles - and I am now actively searching for a clear, citable source. Regards Chienlit (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you try an alternative hook which could be properly sourced?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that in 1910 the daughter of Camille du Gast (pictured) tried to have her killed? ALT2 ... that in 1895 Camille du Gast (pictured) jumped from a hot air balloon at an elevation of 610 metres (2,000 ft) using a parachute?

ALT1 is not directly supported by the source which says that it was her daughter's "ruffian friends" who instigated the murder attempt.(page 14)

ALT2 is not directly supported with source which says that "according to some reports" she jumped from the balloon, without specified elevation.

I think it would be better to avoid accusation for murder attempt especially because it is gossip based, not confirmed on the court. Maybe the solution would be to nominate a hook which is connected with her career in motor racing because that is something she is obviously most famous for? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In order to help this nomination I propose an alternative hook which should be approved by some other user:

ALT3... that Camille du Gast took up motorboat racing after she was excluded from auto racing in 1904? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

La femme au Masque

ALT4... that French sporting pioneer Camille du Gast was falsely accused ~~in court~~ of having posed as La Femme au Masque (pictured)? Chienlit (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I think a 'side by side' montage of both pictures would have more effect. Chienlit (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

ALT5... that French sporting pioneer Camille du Gast was accused of posing as La Femme au Masque (pictured), but lost the court case against her accuser even though it wasn't her? Chienlit (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC) ...

I am very sorry that I again disagree with you, but I think that presenting the case of the La Femme au Masque on the wikipedia main page would be against WP:UNDUE because it is a kind of "isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic".

That is my personal opinion. I would appreciate second opinion about this.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with your 'disagreeable behaviour' AntiD, you have significantly improved the article and that's why I put on DYK in the first place. But ... I have followed the link to WP:UNDUE, and it kinda reads/implies that it only refers to article pages, it never mentions hooks. I am pretty confident that the article does not WP:UNDUE La Femme au Masque because it was key to her celebrity in West Gippsland et al. It may be cheap and tasteless, but I suspect that La Femme au Masque fits every tabloid editor's definition of a hook. :) Chienlit (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC) p.s. I am ambivalent as to which hook is used.

I have to again disagree with you. I don't think that La Femme au Masque is maybe cheap and tasteless. I think she looks perfect.

Most of all, thank you very much for nice article you wrote.

OK for ALT3, ALT4 or ALT5. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you AuntyDee, your conscientiousness and effort put me to shame. Chienlit (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Before this goes forward, the "Women's welfare" section needs a source -- or else it should be deleted. I've looked unsuccessfully for a source.

Also, I've edited hooks ALT4 and ALT5 for accuracy and format. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Ref found, on a 'slow/(protected?) server' that always seems to need a refresh/retry/reload so even Google doesn't find it. Chienlit (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that source. That looks good now. I see, however, that we are working at cross-purposes on the wording of ALT5. I don't like the wording "wrongly accused ... lost the court case", as it appears that she was sued or prosecuted for being photographed. In fact, it seems that she sued her accuser for making false allegations. That's why I added words to make the hook say "lost the court case against her accuser". It appears we need to reach consensus on wording -- otherwise this is likely to be a problem after the hook gets to the queues. --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Try this wording:

ALT6... that French sporting pioneer Camille du Gast was falsely accused of having posed for La Femme au Masque (pictured), but did not win the legal action she filed against her accuser? --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Orlady, I was wrong to edit Alt5, so I have now compounded the wrong by undoing my changes. They did not improve or clarify it, merely shortened it. I am completely happy with any hook on this page, although I am betting that Alt28 will be a cracker. :) Chienlit (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks we we have several good hooks to choose from now. I have a general concern, however, about other aspects of the article.

One concern is the lack of verifiability of some other parts of the article. For example, the first paragraph in "Personal life" says her husband died c. 1896-7 when she was 27, but it cites a source (in French) that says only that her husband died young, leaving her a wealthy heiress. Other sources indicate that he accompanied her in ballooning and/or in motoring, at dates as late as 1902. Reading between the lines, it clear that she acquired some wealth through marriage and that he didn't play a prominent role in her life otherwise, but it doesn't look to me like there is a solid basis for saying when he died.

I fear that my attempts to regularize some of the article formatting may have messed up the identification of quotations. Apparently, some quotations were formatted with italics (what Wikipedia format does when text is surrounded by pairs of single quotation marks, as in ''this example''). I think I may have converted some of these to straight text, when maybe they were supposed to be formatted as quotations (with double quotation marks, as in "this example" or with other formats). These may need to be repaired...

References in languages other than English should be identified as such and reference citations ought to be formatted a little more like standard reference citations (see WP:Citing sources).

Several of the images (including the ones proposed for use with this hook) would be enhanced by cropping to remove margins. --Orlady (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

for ALT6. Thank you for your efforts Orlady. I think that minor concerns (like verifiability of the exact year of death of her husband or format of the cited quotes) are not a serious issue in this reviw taking in consideration that this is not BLP but an article about a woman born in 1868. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)