Template:Did you know nominations/Fredrikke Marie Qvam

The following discussion 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 Mentoz86 (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Fredrikke Marie Qvam

(

)

... that in 1905 Fredrikke Marie Qvam as head of a women's voting rights organization gathered about 300,000 signatures from women in support of the Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden?

Reviewed: Dyrsku'n

5x expanded by Iselilja (talk). Self nominated at 22:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC).

The article is long enough, expanded fivefolds starting May 9 (I'm moving the nomination to that date, as it should be listed understhe date the expansion started, not when it was nominated), and nominated in time. The image is PD and looks good in small resolution, so it can be used. I've done some minor copyediting to the article. That she has an own road in Oslo, might not need a citation, (as it isn't many people named Fredrikke Qvam) but it is still unsourced - could you provide a citation for it? Either way, I don't think the claim is important enough to be in the lead, so I suggest moving it to the "Death and legacy" section. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You're right about the street info, and I have changed and added a ref. now. And thanks for copy-editing. I know the article could do with more copyediting, and I also plan to expand it. This is an article I had planned to write and when I saw someone else had started it, I started expanding it, but due to some unfortunate circumstances I didn't have the time and focus to write it as thorougly as I would have wanted. So, I have to admit, if this article been on my draft board, I wouldn't have nominated it quite yet. If it's ok with you I could copy-edit/expand today, and you can take a new look after that? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me, as long as you are done within a couple of days. You can reply here when you feel it is ready. :) Mentoz86 (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Any progress? Mentoz86 (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any point in detailing this any longer. The article has not been edited in two weeks, and the nominator has not responded here. But the article is good to go, and the text that was added after my initial review is also good. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)