Template:Did you know nominations/Ethel Mairet

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 Allen3 ^talk 13:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethel Mairet

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Ethel Mairet has been called "the mother of English hand-weaving"?

• ALT1:have a go!
• Reviewed: QPQ = 5 of 8 Green-and-black fruiteater
• Comment: (was a redirect) to her lesser known husband (typical)

Created by Victuallers (talk). Self-nominated at 20:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

• Comment Review under way. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• DYK checklist template

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - n/a
• Used in article: - n/a
• Clear at 100px: - n/a

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Passes DYK checklist.

• Review Good to go! Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK nomination was timely and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. Hook references are verified and cited. No copyright violations or too close paraphrasing. In passing, I note that I did not have access to the offline sources and only limited access to those that are "subscription required." Earwig's copy violation detector: Ethel Mairet report gives it a clean bill. Hook is hooky enough, I think, and relates directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  Comment Very thorough review and lots of corrections/additions made - thanks Victuallers (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)