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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I haven't nominated at DYK in years but when I wrote this bio, I first thought "did they get the gender wrong and is Sam possibly a Samantha?" But no, it turns out that the International Rowing Federation changed the rules around coxswains early in 2017. I've recorded this in some detail at Coxswain (rowing). As an aside, it appears that no other country has taken this up yet apart from the New Zealanders with their women's eight. But either way, there are very few international rowing regattas each year (three World Rowing Cups followed by the World Rowing Championships, and every four year the Summer Olympics) and by World Rowing Cup II, Bosworth and the eight females had scored a gold. Just to be sure that the journalists didn't get it wrong in their excitement, I've checked the coxed teams that did compete at cups I and II (men's eight at both cups, and women's eight at Cup II only) and indeed, only the New Zealand women's team has a cox of the other gender. Note that the word "elite" in the hook is important, as the former gender restriction did not apply at World Rowing Masters Regattas, and para-rowing has mixed teams anyway. QPQ yet to be done.
Created by Schwede66 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC).
Overall: Article was new enough when nominated, and is long enough (>2000 characters), with no excessively close paraphrasing or plagiarism that I can see. The claims are well-sourced to neutral sources, and the tone is appropriately neutral. The hook is very interesting, and is well supported by the provided citations (thanks for the very thorough nomination!). The article is clear and interesting, a solid sports bio. This article is good to go for DYK! Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Article was new enough when nominated, and is long enough (>2000 characters), with no excessively close paraphrasing or plagiarism that I can see. The claims are well-sourced to neutral sources, and the tone is appropriately neutral. The hook is very interesting, and is well supported by the provided citations (thanks for the very thorough nomination!). The article is clear and interesting, a solid sports bio. This article is good to go for DYK! Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)