Talk:Rachel Henning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Rachel Henning is currently a Language and literature good article nominee. Nominated by MCE89 (talk) at 21:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and then save the page. See the good article instructions. Short description: Australian letter writer (1826–1914) |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
.jpg){kind=small}
 | A fact from Rachel Henning appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 January 2026 (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 TarnishedPath (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
( )
Rachel Henning
- ... that according to one scholar, the letters of Rachel Henning (pictured) were "deleted, distorted, and defaced" by their editor?
- Source: Allingham, Anne (1994). "Challenging the Editing of the Rachel Henning Letters". Australian Literary Studies. 16 (3): 262–279. doi:10.20314/als.80c951f265. ISSN 0004-9697.
So it was that Rachel Henning's letters were deleted, distorted, and defaced by the Bulletin editor. While this, quite properly, shocks professional historians, it is important to view Adams's editing in perspective, for he was not an academic but a newspaper editor, ever in quest of a good story and accustomed to work in a hurry.
MCE89 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC).
Article was expanded 5x (6x actually) yesterday and thus is new enough and long enough. The hook is interesting and sourced within the article. I can't access the source but I accept the quote verifying it. Earwig shows no issues and I can't see any issues with the article, so this is good to go. Well done! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
