Template:Did you know nominations/Meanderings of Memory
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Meanderings of Memory
[edit]- ... that the 1852 manuscript Meanderings of Memory is used as an early or first source for 51 entries in the Oxford English Dictionary, but when looked for in 2013, could not be located?
- Reviewed: Blockbuster Entertainment Awards
Created by Fuhghettaboutit (talk). Self nominated at 15:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC).
Article size and date of creating fine. Spot check on paraphrasing did not reveal any problems. Hook facts are mentioned in the article. The 2013 non-finding of the original text is verified in cited NYT article. However, there appears to be some confusion about the claimed "source for 51 entries"; the NYT article counts 49 (2+47,or 1+48). Could this be clarified/sorted out? Oceanh (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Oceanh. Thanks for looking. There is some confusion but only on the part of the New Yorker reporter (not "NYT", btw). She relies on facts from The Guardian newspaper source ([1]), which states 51, but somehow got the number wrong. 51 is also provided by the cited Rachel Maddow Show source. But the kicker is the 51 actual words that use the book as the source, listed in the table and sourced to the OED itself, which anyone with access can replicate themselves – the sine qua non of verifiability. I've moved the guardian source's first usage up so it's clear it provides a citation for the sentence containing the 51 number. I know of nothing further I can do but list the actual correct number, despite this outlier, that is demonstrably incorrect.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing citation to the article from The Guardian. One remaining issue with the hook syntax: Shouldn't Oxford English Dictionary be italicized (both in hook and article)? Oceanh (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good catch. Doing so now. It occurred to me tho ask whether, then, the abbreviation OED should also take italics everywhere, but I checked and it appears not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I think I should. I had looked at what they did in the article on the OED itself, and they only italicized the non-abbreviated full name, but WP:ITALICs says otherwise.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
