Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Wayte
- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mary Wayte
[edit]- ... that swimmer Mary Wayte won the first of four Olympic medals by defeating former world record-holder and fellow American Sippy Woodhead in the final of the women's 200-meter freestyle at the 1984 Summer Olympics?
Improved to Good Article status by Dirtlawyer1 (talk). Self nominated at 05:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC).
The article was promoted to GA before the nomination, and is long enough and appears to be in good shape overall, as I'd expect of a new GA. However, the hook is problematic because the article doesn't mention that Cynthia Woodhead is an American or a former world record-holder. Both of those item are in the Toledo Blade article that's currently sourcing the hook fact, so all you have to do is find a way to add them. I'll do further source checks once this is done. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: I have made your suggested changes to the text of the article to better support the hook. Thanks! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- The changes you made look good, and the article's verifiability looked fine from a few spot-checks. The only possible issue I see is that you haven't done a QPQ review of another article, but if you have fewer than 5 DYKs before this one that requirement would be waved. If that's the case, let me know and I'll add a green tick here; if not, you will need to do a review before this gets approved. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: I'm pretty sure this would be my 5th DYK credit (assuming it's approved); it's only the second time I've actually submitted one. The other three were for articles on which I worked, but someone else submitted the DYK nomination. GIven that I've two more pending from the same batch of 3 GAs, I probably should do a couple of DYK reviews in any event. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Because this would be number five, that means you don't have to do a review for this article, which is good to go now. Do keep in mind that you will have to do reviews for the other 2 DYK submissions in order for them to be approved. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
