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) 10:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
... that Sandra Tayler wrote Hold on to Your Horses to help her daughter "visualize and control her impulsive ideas"? Source: interview with Jim Hines. The quote itself is the interviewer quoting Sandra, from her blog post about books for kids with ADD.
It seems to me the article has not been expanded fivefold. This is a brand new BLP article so it was not completely unreferenced before, I don't think the twofold criteria applies? Thanks.
TerryAlex (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@TerryAlex: The article was moved to mainspace on January 16, so the expansion fivefold is irrelevant. According to the DYK Check tool, the article has "1934 characters (306 words)", so it meets the minimum prose size by over 400 characters. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think the article is GTG then.TerryAlex (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I was considering promoting this but think it contravenes DYK supplementary rule D7, because it appears incomplete. The lead section (uncited) mentions that she is an "American children's book and fantasy writer and blogger" and "has published short stories, essays on parenting and mental illness, and has presented at conventions on writing and geek parenting". The main body mentions the conventions but hardly anything about her writing activities. It feels as if there should be a first paragraph in the "Career" section explaining her main activities. She would not have been asked to take part in the conventions if she had not already established a reputation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cwmhiraeth. I took "fantasy" writer out of the lead, because while she has published a few short stories, there's very little information available on them. There are some reviews as comments on the stories or in amazon reviews, but not a lot from other sites. I changed the order of the paragraphs in the "career" section to focus on her writing first, and I added another two sentences about her blogging. I think she started off presenting at conventions based off her blog entries and her husband's popularity, and since she's a good presenter, she's been asked to do more of that. I can summarize more of her blog entries, but as far as secondary sources go, I've exhausted the news articles (there are a few more blog entries I could reference). Is it currently sufficient? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Restoring tick as my concerns have been dealt with. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me the article has not been expanded fivefold. This is a brand new BLP article so it was not completely unreferenced before, I don't think the twofold criteria applies? Thanks.
TerryAlex (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think the article is GTG then.TerryAlex (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I was considering promoting this but think it contravenes DYK supplementary rule D7, because it appears incomplete. The lead section (uncited) mentions that she is an "American children's book and fantasy writer and blogger" and "has published short stories, essays on parenting and mental illness, and has presented at conventions on writing and geek parenting". The main body mentions the conventions but hardly anything about her writing activities. It feels as if there should be a first paragraph in the "Career" section explaining her main activities. She would not have been asked to take part in the conventions if she had not already established a reputation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)