Talk:Tweet Kimball

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 Bruxton (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Tweet Kimball
• Cherokee Ranch petrified forest

)

Petrified wood from the Cherokee Ranch petrified forest

• ... that Tweet Kimball lived in a castle, herded grand-champion cattle, and preserved a petrified forest (fossil pictured)? Source: Saldias, Constanza (10 June 2014). "Celebrate Tweet Kimball's 100th birthday at Waterloo at Cherokee Castle & Ranch". Westword. Denver. Retrieved 25 July 2023.; Kinder, Libby (25 September 2018). "Such a Fine Sight to See: Exploring Colorado's Cherokee Ranch and Castle". Cheyenne Edition. Colorado Springs, CO: Colorado Springs Gazette. Retrieved 25 July 2023.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pico Sacro
  • Comment: Please note that the DYK nom for Pico Sacro was a double-barrel with Queen Lupa.

Created by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 22:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Tweet Kimball; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

New enough, long enough, well cited. Hook is composite, with all parts directly cited in the article. DYK check all green. I have made some minor grammar touchups to the body. QPQ complete. GTG. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Thanks for the review! Just wanted to make sure you checked for compliance in Cherokee Ranch petrified forest. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this a dual-nom? I read it as a single. Ahh, I didn't see the bold text. Give me a bit. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

, signing off on the second article as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Sorry for the confusion; thank you for your prompt re-review. Have a great day! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti and Maury Markowitz: Not sure if she personally ever herded cattle but it is assumed. The article has a few sentences which are written with a conversational tone. Sentences such as Kimball would raise her two sons at Cherokee Castle and would eventually marry three more times might be rewritten with a more encyclopedic-tone. Perhaps in past tense? We can also find a non-free image of her since the subject is deceased. Also it is "Colorado's only petrified forest" according to sources an we may have incorporated that into a hook. Additionally, I cannot use the image because it does not appear in the article, it is also tangential to the subject Bruxton (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Latter?

"Kimball established a foundation prior to her death, preserving her collections, the castle, and ranch land – the latter of which includes portions of the Cherokee Ranch petrified forest ... " Latter is used to specify the second of two - and only two - items — but three are listed here: collections, castle, ranch land ... so 'latter' is incorrect. The easy fix is this: "Kimball established a foundation prior to her death, preserving her collections, the castle, and ranch land – the last of which includes portions of the Cherokee Ranch petrified forest ... " Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Prisoner of Zenda: Simple grammatical changes rarely require a talk page discussion. Additionally, you're incorrect: see Britannica and Merriam-Webster. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Pbritti. Extract from Merriam-Webster: "This use [of latter for the last in a series] is common enough that most modern dictionaries make mention of it in their definitions for latter — and indeed they should, since our evidence for this particular use is several hundred years old. Despite this evidence, however, there are still those who object to its use; if you are concerned about such things, use last to refer to the last item in a series of three or more." I'm obviously in the latter group! Had I not raised this on the talk page, I'd have changed the article, and possibly incurred your wrath. Unfortunately, incorrect usage becomes normalised, even though it's incorrect; e.g., many people use 'mitigate' when they mean 'militate' - but few seem to be able to recognise the difference. I'll pull my head in, and leave the article as it is. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Prisoner of Zenda: Please note that statements like Had I not raised this on the talk page, I'd have changed the article, and possibly incurred your wrath are failures to assume good faith. Indeed, you should feel safe to edit boldly. In this case, there is no indication that latter should be considered incorrect usage, as "this particular use is several hundred years old" and "most modern dictionaries make mention of it". As such, your error would have most likely been reverted with a brief explanation. I made a mistake yesterday, which was politely reverted with such an explanation. It's all part of the process! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)