Talk:Pamela McCorduck

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that late Pamela McCorduck who chronicled the evolution of artificial intelligence regretted that she did not recognize the potential for misuse of the technology? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/technology/pamela-mccorduck-dead.html

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Interstate H-2

5x expanded by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 02:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Boldly changed "could" to "did". She could have, but she did not. Victuallers (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Victuallers:, I am on the fence on this one. I do not know if she 'could have' but 'did not'. The source only says 'having not'. Ktin (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be a slightly different understanding of "could", but surely there was nothing physically stopping her, so she "could" have... but didn't... I guess its possible that her editor wouldnt allow her to include her warnings .. but its your call, you have read the sources and I have not. Victuallers (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How about replacing "that she did/could not recognize" with "not recognizing"? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mandarax: I like that. ALT1 below. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1: ... that late Pamela McCorduck, who chronicled the evolution of artificial intelligence, regretted not recognizing the potential for misuse of the technology? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/technology/pamela-mccorduck-dead.html

• Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ktin, your QPQ is overdue. Please supply it as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, but could someone clarify if it's appropriate to use "the late" in the hook or if it's considered a term to avoid? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I have never seen it in a hook before. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks @BlueMoonset:. Added QPQ. Ktin (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Made a small adjustment to the hook, check if it is acceptable to you, Ktin; don't think AI needs to be linked. Referencing in the article is good, hook is directly cited, Earwig picks up a few things but they are mostly titles or statements that do not need to be reworded, 5x expansion seems to be accurate, QPQ provided. Spotchecks for source-text integrity seem good. Interesting hook about a profoundly important woman - it is too bad that we did not say more while she was still with us. "Late" does not seem problematic, it is useful contextually for our readers but the promoter can trim it if desired. Good to go on ALT1. Urve (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck ALT1 because it is not grammatically sound; I frankly think that "late" (or "the late") is unnecessary, and am proposing ALT1a without "late"; also ALT1b as a tighter wording:

• ALT1a: ... that Pamela McCorduck, who chronicled the evolution of artificial intelligence, regretted not recognizing the potential for misuse of the technology?
• ALT1b: ... that Pamela McCorduck, who chronicled the evolution of artificial intelligence, regretted not recognizing the technology's potential for misuse?

Pinging Urve to check (and tick?) the new ALTs. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BlueMoonset I am ok with either of the two hooks. i.e. ALT1a or ALT1b. I would, however, request that we wikilink artificial intelligence. I have gone ahead and done that. Ktin (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. I only removed the link to AI to not reduce the number of views to the main article but it's not important. Hooks are great. Urve (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Promoter's comment: Usually, this stuff just gets fixed in post, so thanks for helping out :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]