Template:Did you know nominations/Nancy M. Hill
- 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 PFHLai (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nancy M. Hill
[edit]... that Nancy M. Hill was one of the first female doctors in the United States?
- ALT1:
... that after volunteering as a nurse during the Civil War, Nancy M. Hill became one of the first female doctors in the United States? - Reviewed: C. A. W. Jeekel
- ALT1:
Created by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 14:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC).
Hi, you have jazzier stuff in the article:- ALT2:
... that in 1896, Dr. Nancy M. Hill founded the Women's Rescue Society of Dubuque, Iowa, for unwed mothers and their babies? - ALT3:
... that Nancy M. Hill, one of the first female doctors in the US, said, "I was never a mother but brought about 1000 children into this world"?Yoninah (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting life of a strong woman, offline sources there for all hooks above, accepted AGF. What do you think of a combination (because I don't think the longish name of the Society is so catchy):
- ALT4: ... that Nancy M. Hill (pictured), one of the first women physicians in the US, founded a society to provide shelter and support for unwed mothers and their babies in Dubuque, Iowa? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Support for ALT4, particularly since the name of the organization changed several times. I've also put a DYK notice on the article's talk page, and added an 1895 portrait of Nancy Hill. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, good image, suggested here also, should possibly be cropped for less white around her face, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Additional confirmation of above review of ALT4 (to prevent further delay on grounds of rules): New enough (for 1 June) and long enough. QPQ done. No problems with disambig links or with access to external links. ALT4 is acceptable and short enough, and is sourced to offline citation #6, accepted AGF by me also. Hook image is free, it appears in the article, and I have cropped it as suggested above by Gerda Arendt. Text is written in an objective manner and neutral style, and is fully cited. All external links were checked for potential sources of copyvio and close paraphrasing; nothing objectionable found. Confirmed good to go. --Storye book (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
