Template:Did you know nominations/Susanna Elm

Susanna Elm

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Susanna Elm wrote Virgins of God?

• Reviewed: Professor Aristóteles Orsini Planetarium
• Comment: This article was started at the 2017 Women in Classics editathon.

Created by Jwslubbock (talk) and Haylesley (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 21:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC).

• Length, Date, Cite, QPQ, and Earwigs checkout. Mifter (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Returned from prep. Sorry, this is not a hook. I've also written things. If you're trying to emphasize the bawdy title, please put it into a better setting. Yoninah (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't agree with Yoninah's complaint. The hook is deliberately "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in" as recommended at WP:DYKHOOK. Let's see what the reviewer Mifter says. So that we may have more choice, here's a more verbose version. My fear is that, if we make it longer like this, it will attract more nitpicking. KISS. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that Susanna Elm wrote Virgins of God, reviewed as a stimulating exposition and exploitation of little-known virginity literature?

• No, you don't have to go from snappy to verbose. If you had a cite for this, you could write:
• ALT2: ... that Susanna Elm expanded her doctoral thesis on female asceticism into the book Virgins of God? Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• It's not unusual for a thesis to be turned into a book and so ALT2 tends to dilute the hook's impact. It also explains too much about the work and this will tend to lessen interest in clicking through. I still prefer the original which gets the reader wondering what Virgins of God is about rather than telling them at the outset. We're writing a hook here, not a summary. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would agree with those who've noted problems in the hooks so far. Here's another suggestion (and it's already cited):

• ALT3 ... that Susanna Elm's book Virgins of God draws on little-known sources such as Athanasius' Letter to the Virgins Who Went to Jerusalem? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ooh, I like it. @Andrew Davidson:? Yoninah (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• ALT3 dilutes the impact of the hook by introducing another work by another author. It provides a second blue link which will tend to divert the click-throughs. It would be better if truncated to

• ALT3b ... that Susanna Elm's book Virgins of God draws on little-known sources?

Looking at articles to review: Of all these suggestions, I like the original best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed the link to Athanasius in ALT3; that eliminates the click-through issue. If you feel it's better not to mention another author at all, see ALT3a below. For me, adding the second title adds interest and stimulates curiosity (which virgins? why did they go there?) about Elm's work. Just stating that she draws on little-known sources seems rather dull and uninteresting. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk)

• ALT3a ... that Susanna Elm's book Virgins of God draws on little-known sources such as the Letter to the Virgins Who Went to Jerusalem?

• I'm with Mary Mark Ockerbloom on ALT3a. Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reviewer needed to check the remaining ALT hooks (original hook was struck because it was pulled from prep; ALT3 because ALT3a satisfies an issues raised with it, and ALT3b because it is indeed uninteresting). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

- Length, Date, Cite, QPQ, and Earwigs check. ALT3a is approved. Mifter (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)