A fact from Sofía Sánchez (politician) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 June 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EcuadorWikipedia:WikiProject EcuadorTemplate:WikiProject EcuadorEcuador articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
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.
Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, has solid sources and is neutral and plagairism free (0% @Earwig). Image is clear and free to use - be great to have an Ecuadorian woman on the front page. Hook is cited and interesting. QPQ done. Lajmmoore (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: "Football was most important to her but she prioritised her studies at the University of Cuenca... " What? Surely the word "studies" hints at the word "study"? Is this some new rule that paraphrasing is no longer enough and every word in a hook must also appear in the article? Quite odd. Victuallers (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thx Lajjmoore, sorry that this has happened. As you know paraphasing is required by DYK... and in this case she speaks Spanish - so exact is not only undesirable, but also impossible. Best case is just leave it be, but someone could easily change mother said "study" to mother said she should study and that only wastes time (and a bit of hookiness) and it has no effect on the meaning. Victuallers (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Victuallers: I phrased my original problem pretty terribly; I just didn't see, in the text of the article, that her mother specifically told her to study instead of soccer. If her mother told her that soccer wouldn't be a living, and she therefore made an independent decision to study instead, that's not quite the same. Sorry about that, that's all I was trying to go for. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that is I (and the original reviewer) cannot make out what you are talking about unless it is a trivial difference between what you think you are reading and what I think is written. Which bit of the hook makes you think there is a question of whether her "mother told her specifically to study or whether her mother just said that soccer wouldn't make her a living?". The causality is never stated. Can I suggest that we find another reviewer (or withdraw the nomination). To my mind a nomination that has been approved should be stopped only for a significant problem and what you are failing to describe, doesnt appear to justify anyone's time. Victuallers (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello theleekycauldron - I think the relavent quote (via google translate) is this: "The 28-year-old creative midfielder remembers that her mother, Sandra Urgilés, recommended that she prioritize university studies because "you are not going to live on soccer." from first reference above and then the second reference above gives her national assembly role. I think the quoted sentence covers both her prioritising study AND that she needed another career too. I do appreciate your caution theleekycauldron - and all the DYK work you do, but I do think the salient features of this hook are featured in the original source. Thanks for your time and and concern. Lajmmoore (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lajmmoore: I appreciate that it's in the source—I don't doubt the veracity of the claim—but my issue is that it's not spelled out in the article either. If it's featured in the source, it'd be nice if it were featured in the article too. I'm happy to make those edits myself. Also, Victuallers, not understanding the nature of the issue isn't a reason to throw up your hands—we're all playing for the same team, and I want to see this go through as much as anyone (I was hoping to give it an image slot!). I'd much rather we work this out than see you withdraw this, and we'll wonder whether it was worth our time when we're done. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So another couple of weeks pass ... and we have all pretty much lost interest. Holding an article up for a copyedit seems to me like fiddling. Is the change an improvement? I can't be bothered to look. "Is it worth the time" was the rhetorical question? Who cares? - this is meant to be for new articles that are a work in progress. Does every article have to be tweeked after it has been approved and then just hang around? Article may have improved by 1% but editors interest is now around 1%. Delete it/ promote it/ leave it here. I don't mind. Victuallers (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers, you nominated your hook just 26 days before you wrote your last comment here. That's a fairly standard amount of time between nomination and promotion (although I'll grant you it's a little on the high end). Your nomination is near the top of DYKNA; and it's been hard to give attention to this one, as we can only include four biographical hooks in every set and we had a terrifying surplus of them a week or two ago (a problem that gets worse when you consider the image slot). Simply put: be patient; no promoter worth their salt is going to be skipping this discussion because it had an issue that's since been resolved. I understand that you're frustrated, I'm sorry about that; but on the bright side, your hook is gonna run. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Article is new enough, long enough, has solid sources and is neutral and plagairism free (0% @Earwig). Image is clear and free to use - be great to have an Ecuadorian woman on the front page. Hook is cited and interesting. QPQ done. Lajmmoore (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)