- 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) 06:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Created by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC).
My first attempt at a review, hope I'm doing this right!...
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
DMacks (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Among the hooks, ALT3 does not seem as interesting as other options; ALT3 is probably more recognizeable than ALT4 for a similar idea (comparison of ability to notable males). The original hook and ALT1 incorrectly imply that the Preston Rivulettes team that accomplished these feats was static, but I assume the roster varied year to year. These two hooks would be fine if they said "a women's ice hockey team" instead of the team-name, and would help readers understand especially the topic more easily in ALT1. If I read Preston Rivulettes correctly, she was captain for the team's entire existance of 10 years, so that makes her and her team even more interesting in the original and ALT1, but I'm not sure a way to work that in within 200 chars. DMacks (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@DMacks: why are you giving an approval tick and then proposing new wording? Please work out the new wording with the nominator, and if necessary, call for a new reviewer of any hook that you yourself propose. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am open to suggestions, but I am confused with the review. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- It appears that the reviewer is not coming back; the article for which he used this review as a QPQ has been promoted. I'll take a look at this now. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- New review: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Images in article are freely licensed. QPQ done.
- Regarding the hooks:
- ALT0 is interesting, but the article doesn't mention "consecutive". I understand we're talking about ten years running, but please add the word "consecutive" somewhere. I agree with DMacks that the team name should be piped, like:
- The team name can be linked in the caption.
- ALT1 is ok, verified and cited inline. Again, suggest piping it:
- ALT2 isn't so hooky.
- Contemporary readers can certainly relate to ALT3; hook ref verified and cited inline.
- ALT4 is good; even if you don't know who Terry Sawchuk is, you'll click on it. Hook ref verified and cited inline.
- Please let me know which one you prefer. Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have no preference of hook, but I did forget to put (pictured) after her name in each instance. Flibirigit (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- OK, leaving it to the prep promoter to choose among ALT0a, ALT1a, ALT3, and ALT4. Any one of these will make a great lead image hook. All the hooks are verified and cited inline; thanks for adding "consecutive" to the article. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, real life took a major chunk of time past few weeks. There did not seem to be a middle ground in the template between "accept" and "reject" for just working out hook-wording and other small details. DMacks (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DMacks: the "middle ground" is the question-mark icon in the chart above the edit window. If you are using the Reviewer's Template, there is the same option under "status" for a question mark or "maybe" icon:
- |status = <!---Put "y" if no problems, "?" for minor problems, "maybe" if nomination needs work, "no" if completely ineligible, "again" to request another reviewer take a look---> Yoninah (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was looking at the
|hookother=, where it becomes a red-X if I write anything other than "y" there...rejection of proposed was not my intent and here is where I was stuck about a missing intermediate state. And with no fields not "y", marking the status as other-than-"y" is inconsistent on its face. DMacks (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
DMacks (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
