- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Infant swimming
edit
- ... that babies will instinctively hold their breath underwater (pictured) until the age of six months?
ALT1:... that swimming lessons for babies and toddlers (pictured) reduce drownings by 88%?ALT2:... that swimming lessons (pictured) reduce drownings by 88% in babies and toddlers up to four years old?- Comment: For the ALT hooks, one of the other images in the article would be better. I'm not aware of a way to directly propose ALT images in the nomination.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Created/expanded by Peak Player (talk). Nominated by Oreo Priest (talk) at 17:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC).
- The ALTs are misleading as this appears to be a US-only study and even the researchers stated the results were imprecise. (The whole article is a bit US-centric). Belle (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Everything looks good to me, in reference to Belle's concerns, ideally we could put a little more info about when and where the classes popped up (mostly America) and the response to them. I know there has been more criticism than the risk of infection. However, if you can't find it, no worries, I think the article is fine as is. I'll sign off on it tomorrow. Cpuser20 (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- One minor comment, I realize that "infant self rescue" is a trademarked name, so not all swim lessons are ISR, but it's getting to be one of those things like Kleenex that people seem to heavily refer to infant swim lessons as ISR, or at least that's what I've perceived. It may be worth mentioning the term in the article, since it is widely known. Cpuser20 (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The article is long and new enough , qpq done, no copyvios and paraphrasing issues found, adequately sourced and interesting, GTG! -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
PapaJeckloy above has been blocked for disruption and socking at DYK so a full review is needed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the comment directly above this, but DYKcheck passes, hook is well cited, article is well formatted and reffered throughout. Good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! Basically what happened was that the previous editor who approved it was shown to be untrustworthy in other areas, so his approval of the article was not considered legitimate. In other words, it was a problem with the reviewer, not the article. Oreo Priest talk 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)