Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Bryony Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 North America1000 21:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bryony Page

[edit]

5x expanded by Egghead06 (talk) and January (talk). Nominated by January (talk) at 19:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC).

  • for the first hook. Very good. Article is long enough after a recent expansion and is well-referenced with no copyright issues. The fact checks out and is interesting. The latter hook is not as good, as it is sourced only to a minor local newspaper; not, I think, a terrible source, but not a great one. (I know this is a point of contention, but would it not be fairer to call her the United Kingdom's first medallist? She is part of Team GB, but represents the UK.) Josh Milburn (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That's simply untrue. They compete as part of a team which is (controversially) called "Team GB" or sometimes "Team GB and NI", but they're not representing the island of Great Britain, they're representing the United Kingdom (and some territories/crow dependencies). All of this is explained in the first paragraph of the article you link to, so I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to show me. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The team is the Great Britain team, not the United Kingdom team. The article I linked to states that the International Olympic Committee refers to the team as Great Britain. January (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As I have said, that is indeed the team's name, but "x is in the team y's name" does not mean "sportspeople in team y represent x". I am not interested in discussing this any further. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Neither am I. Earlier you ticked only the first hook, please could you just confirm if you approve of the second hook as it stands to conclude the review? January (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Both hooks are fine, though I prefer the first. Editors may want to think about merging both sections in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)