Template:Did you know nominations/Maxine Dunlap Bennett
- 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 97198 (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Maxine Dunlap Bennett
- ... that Maxine Dunlap, the first licensed woman glider pilot in the U.S., began her flight training after catching "lindberghitis"? Sources: for "lindberghitis": "She was smitten with lindberghitis in '27 and a year later became the proud owner of private license #5894", "Wings Over Dixie - Ninenty Niners", The Charlotte Observer, 26 Feb. 1939); for "first woman glider pilot": "Maxine Dunlap ... yesterday qualified as the first woman in the United States to hold a glider pilot's license.", "Bay Girl Licensed as First U. S. Woman Glider Pilot", The San Francisco Examiner, Apr. 29, 1929
- Reviewed: Annelien Van Wauwe
Created/expanded by Crum375 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC).
Article is new enough and long enough. Earwigs did not detect any close paraphrasing. Assuming good faith for the hook sources as I can't access them right now. QPQcheck says that you have only three prior DYK credits with the most recent in 2014; can you please confirm this? I also have some questions about the article: firstly, why is her being the first licensed woman glider pilot in the U.S. only mentioned in the lede but not in the body? Secondly, is there any known information about her early life as well as her life after the 1930s? The article does not mention a date of death. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the review! I have added a mention of the "first licensed woman glider pilot in the US" to the body. I think the QPQ tool is buggy, since around Jan. 2020, while submitting my last DYK nom, I reviewed several others (I can try to find them). Regarding death, I have a request in the Talk page for that info, since I haven't been able to find anything after her husband's obit in 1975, when she was 66 or so. I have also not been able to find anything further about her early life beyond what's in the article (i.e. available sources). If you can find anything about either, it would be great. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Maybe you can try asking where to find sources about her later life? Given the supplementary guidelines on completeness I have reservations of approving this without the early life and death issues being addressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I have a subscription to newspapers.com which is fairly complete for all US papers, and can't find an obit for her there or any more recent mention. There is also nothing further in the 99's newsletters (she was an early and active member there). The last reference I found anywhere is that she survived her husband's death in 1975, when she was 66 yo. The usual tools just don't come up with anything (under any of her names) since that time (excluding historical reviews with no further info). If you know of any other resource that I have missed, let me know. Crum375 (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Are your "reservations" because every DYK article about a person must have early and late life material? If so, do you have a reference for that? I checked here and couldn't find anything pertinent, but I could have missed something. Crum375 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- According to WP:DYKSG#D7, articles that appear on DYK are ideally expected have most of the essential information of a subject, which can include life information in the case of biographies. Nominations in the past have stalled or even been rejected for lacking important information. Biographies are not necessarily required to have information about early and personal life, particularly if no sources about it are available, but they are good to have when they are feasible. In this case, the lack of information about early life can be accepted since an effort was made to find sources pertaining to it, but a lack of a date of death does raise eyebrows since given the year she was born and her past at the very least a date of death is expected. If there's simply no information about a date of death out there and nothing can be done about it, the article can still be passed, but perhaps some kind of note or text could be added to the article reflecting that (while following WP:NOR), like maybe mentioning the thing about the death of her husband above is the last known information about her. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I agree with you that the lack of date of death is problematic, so I tried your suggestion. What do you think? Crum375 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think it could work, but I'm not sure if the "her year of death is unknown" part would count as WP:OR. I'll try to get back to you regarding that; once that's been resolved the nomination will be passed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I talked to some editors over at Discord (courtesy ping to MrLinkinPark333 and Epicgenius) and their advice was that the note wording (about her having no known DOD, assuming that she has died) might be OR. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Do they have any other practical suggestion? Do they think the nom can pass without it? Crum375 (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- MrLinkinPark333 said they wouldn't comment here, I'll ask Epicgenius if he wants to chime in. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding OR, it is original research to say the subject has definitely died if we're given only the fact that she was born in 1909. While it's unlikely she's still alive, there have been recorded instances of living 111-year-olds, and if there is a non-zero chance that something may not be true, it may be challenged. I also noticed that the current phrasing of the lead is also ambiguous as to whether Dunlap is alive or dead (which is a good thing in my opinion). The current wording, that Dunlap "was the first licensed woman glider pilot", is true in either case, since her accomplishment occurred in the past rather than being an ongoing role. For the footnote, I would suggest that, if there are absolutely no sources that mention a date of death, then the article need not mention it. There are just some things that escape newspapers, and not everyone chooses to have their obituary published in the news. epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: I have modified the note to try to address your comment, as I agree that there is a minuscule chance she's still alive at 111. What do you think? Crum375 (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Crum375: Your current wording works. FWIW, I looked at newspaperarchive.com and other places, and can't find anything about her death, if it's happened. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Thanks! Much appreciated. Crum375 (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Crum375: Your current wording works. FWIW, I looked at newspaperarchive.com and other places, and can't find anything about her death, if it's happened. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: I have modified the note to try to address your comment, as I agree that there is a minuscule chance she's still alive at 111. What do you think? Crum375 (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding OR, it is original research to say the subject has definitely died if we're given only the fact that she was born in 1909. While it's unlikely she's still alive, there have been recorded instances of living 111-year-olds, and if there is a non-zero chance that something may not be true, it may be challenged. I also noticed that the current phrasing of the lead is also ambiguous as to whether Dunlap is alive or dead (which is a good thing in my opinion). The current wording, that Dunlap "was the first licensed woman glider pilot", is true in either case, since her accomplishment occurred in the past rather than being an ongoing role. For the footnote, I would suggest that, if there are absolutely no sources that mention a date of death, then the article need not mention it. There are just some things that escape newspapers, and not everyone chooses to have their obituary published in the news. epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- MrLinkinPark333 said they wouldn't comment here, I'll ask Epicgenius if he wants to chime in. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Do they have any other practical suggestion? Do they think the nom can pass without it? Crum375 (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- I talked to some editors over at Discord (courtesy ping to MrLinkinPark333 and Epicgenius) and their advice was that the note wording (about her having no known DOD, assuming that she has died) might be OR. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think it could work, but I'm not sure if the "her year of death is unknown" part would count as WP:OR. I'll try to get back to you regarding that; once that's been resolved the nomination will be passed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I agree with you that the lack of date of death is problematic, so I tried your suggestion. What do you think? Crum375 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- According to WP:DYKSG#D7, articles that appear on DYK are ideally expected have most of the essential information of a subject, which can include life information in the case of biographies. Nominations in the past have stalled or even been rejected for lacking important information. Biographies are not necessarily required to have information about early and personal life, particularly if no sources about it are available, but they are good to have when they are feasible. In this case, the lack of information about early life can be accepted since an effort was made to find sources pertaining to it, but a lack of a date of death does raise eyebrows since given the year she was born and her past at the very least a date of death is expected. If there's simply no information about a date of death out there and nothing can be done about it, the article can still be passed, but perhaps some kind of note or text could be added to the article reflecting that (while following WP:NOR), like maybe mentioning the thing about the death of her husband above is the last known information about her. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Maybe you can try asking where to find sources about her later life? Given the supplementary guidelines on completeness I have reservations of approving this without the early life and death issues being addressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the review! I have added a mention of the "first licensed woman glider pilot in the US" to the body. I think the QPQ tool is buggy, since around Jan. 2020, while submitting my last DYK nom, I reviewed several others (I can try to find them). Regarding death, I have a request in the Talk page for that info, since I haven't been able to find anything after her husband's obit in 1975, when she was 66 or so. I have also not been able to find anything further about her early life beyond what's in the article (i.e. available sources). If you can find anything about either, it would be great. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Crum375: if you are using clippings via Newspapers.com, one of the rules is to make a clipping and mark it "open access". I have done that for your Atlanta Constitution reference. I also added an existing clipping for Joseph Bennett's death. I found Maxine Dunlap Bennett listed as being from California in the 1940 US Census, so I added her information from the 1910 US Census, which gives us her birth year. It's weird that there isn't any more information about her, not in Newspapers.com, or in Find a Grave, or in the Social Security Death Index. Maybe she's one of the oldest living Americans? I think the article is worded all right but please disambiguate University of California. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Thank you for all that work and review! Regarding the UC dab issue, it's another example of frustration with limited information. All I found about her education was one source saying she attended "University of California" with no further details. So instead of OR-ing and deciding "they must have meant campus X" (with X=UCSF most likely), I decided to link to the parent organization (which is not simply a WP dab page), as better (IMO) than no link at all (bearing in mind that UCSF only became independent in 1964 and only got its name in 1970). But I am open to suggestions, or any additional well-sourced information, as always. Crum375 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Crum375: Thanks for the explanation. I've removed the tag. The hook is fine, but I have a question about the sourcing. On this template you've given the source as the Charlotte Observer, but you give two different (offline) sources in the article. (I'm also wondering if you can clip those 2 sources as I mentioned above.) Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Thank you, will work linking to those clips per your suggestion. Re having two sources, I only have one source (the Charlotte Observer of 1939) for "lindberghitis", but multiple sources for "first woman glider pilot in the US", both of which are mentioned in the hook. I like the SF Examiner Apr. 29 for the latter claim, since it was contemporaneous, but I think it's best to have both. Crum375 (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- But it's confusing in the article. You're quoting the Charlotte Observer and then citing the Oakland Tribune and the San Francisco Examiner. Maybe after you link some clips it will become clearer :) Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Will try to improve it. Bear in mind that some clips, even when written under a headline of event D, may recap events A, B and C, and sometimes add more info about B than we have in other sources. So the sequence of sources could be confusing if you just look at the titles or dates. This is where online sources are of course much better. I have also added a quote to the ref for the "first woman" part. Crum375 (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Is there/was there such a thing as lindberghitis? It isn't in the dictionary. Might be better to look for a different hook. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any rule on either WP as whole or DYK specifically that requires everything to have multiple sources or dictionary entries. It is possible in this case that this term was coined by the author of the article (in a reliable publication, subject to editorial control), or perhaps by Maxine herself. But either way, a single reliable source, even if we assume that the source actually coined the term (which is why it's in quotes) is sufficient for a WP article and a related DYK hook, AFAIK. Crum375 (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. It's reliably sourced, and quoted from the source. We rarely link to wiktionary in hooks. Yoninah (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't think "lindberghitis" needs to be linked to a dictionary since it's just a funny quote, only that the quote itself needs to be sourced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Does anyone think that more offline (newspaper) sources need to include quotes (beyond the hook ones, which are already there)? I am having difficulties getting online links to the clippings, but would be happy to add more quotes if someone wants anything specific. Of course anyone with a newspaper archive account (or at a public library) should be able to access them for verification. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't think "lindberghitis" needs to be linked to a dictionary since it's just a funny quote, only that the quote itself needs to be sourced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
