Talk:Paper Girl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Paper Girl is currently a Language and literature good article nominee. Nominated by DrOrinScrivello (talk) at 18:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC) This article is ready to be reviewed in accordance with the good article criteria. Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review the article and decide if it should be listed as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and then save the page. See the instructions. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | A fact from Paper Girl appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 December 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by HurricaneZeta (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
( )
- ... that according to the author of Paper Girl, the super rich are removing the "ladder of upward mobility" from the reach of lower-class hands?
- Source: "Her more compelling argument is that the one-percenters are squeezing out the middle class. By excluding low-wage families from college education and other opportunities, they're removing 'the ladder of upward mobility,' as she writes." Byron, Grace. (October 22, 2025). "The Muscular Compassion of Paper Girl". The New Yorker.
Moved to mainspace by DrOrinScrivello (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 19 past nominations.
DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC).
QPQ is done. Article is long enough and was moved to article space on December 1 and nominated on December 3 and is therefore new enough. Inline citations to WP:RS throughout, no copyright violations detected, and article is compliant will all policies. Hook fact is interesting and is an acceptable length. The only issue I have is that the source is not accessible and requires subscription access. Per WP:DYKCRIT I will need a quote provided from the source in order to verify the hook. Please ping me here when replying with a quote so I can finish reviewing.4meter4 (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- @4meter4: A quote was already provided above, does that suffice for the purposes of this review? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, 4meter4, that source is occasionally accessible for me when I try to access it and occasionally behind a firewall, with no discernible pattern as to why. I was hoping it might be available when a reviewer took a look, but alas. As NLH5 mentioned, though, I made sure to provide a quote with the hook here just in case – let me know if there's anything else you need. Thanks for the review! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
