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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Overall: Article is new enough, long enough and well sourced (the Orlando podcast is with a subject matter expert so it's OK). Earwig is flagging the bibliography list as copyvio, but that's pretty much a false positive because the titles of her books aren't something that can be reprhased. @Victuallers: Both hooks are very interesting, but ALT0 might be more clear to people if we mentioned that she couldn't see. Could we maybe say "despite losing her sight" or something like that? If not, I think the hook is clear enough as is. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, If you feel it needs that explanation then add it, I thought amanuensis implied it was the case. Our wording is unlikely to be the final wording as frequently hooks get changed again anyway, so... Cheers Victuallers (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
Article is new enough, long enough and well sourced (the Orlando podcast is with a subject matter expert so it's OK). Earwig is flagging the bibliography list as copyvio, but that's pretty much a false positive because the titles of her books aren't something that can be reprhased. @Victuallers: Both hooks are very interesting, but ALT0 might be more clear to people if we mentioned that she couldn't see. Could we maybe say "despite losing her sight" or something like that? If not, I think the hook is clear enough as is. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)