Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Lambert
- 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 SL93 talk 23:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Margaret Lambert
- ... that Margaret Lambert was the British historian responsible for examining the Marburg Files and deciding when they should be published?
- Source: "she would not welcome an attempt by one of the three Governments to limit the discretion which they had previously accorded to the historians to decide on objective historical grounds which documents should be published. But she had herself made the suggestion that the publication of this correspondence might be delayed" [1] "she dealt directly with Churchill over the delay in publication of the "Windsor file"" [2]
- ALT1: ... that historian Margaret Lambert and her partner Enid Marx wanted to preserve English folk art and left their collection to Compton Verney Art Gallery? Source: "She and her long-term partner, the historian Margaret Lambert, were concerned to preserve English material heritage. They published books on popular English folk arts and left their own collection to the public at Compton Verney, Warwickshire." [3]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Saraswati enthroned
Converted from a redirect by Zeromonk (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.
Zeromonk (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, referenced and well-written. QPQ done. However ALT0 is IMO not in the article as it stands. The brief statement "discussed with Churchill access to the Marburg Files" is rather generic and can mean a lot of things (especially to readers who won't know why access was important here), the proposed hook is far more specific. Constantine ✍ 18:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review @Cplakidas: you're absolutely right about how it was written in the article! I've rewritten to clarify.
Good to go now! Constantine ✍ 20:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review @Cplakidas: you're absolutely right about how it was written in the article! I've rewritten to clarify.
- Zeromonk I want to promote the first hook, but a citation is needed directly after the hook fact in the article. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
