- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Keira Walsh
- ... that footballer Keira Walsh first captained England in 2018, when she was the youngest player in the squad?
ALT1: ... that Keira Walsh was recognised for her talent in badminton before becoming a footballer?ALT2: ... that footballer Keira Walsh made celebrated long ball passes to assist goals in the final matches of the 2019 SheBelieves Cup and 2022 UEFA Women's Euro, winning both with England?- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sasaki Tōichi
- Comment: Of my suggestions, I prefer the simplicity of alt0 or the combination of alt2; I am sure there are plenty of things that could be turned into hooks, happy for anyone to make suggestions. Could be an image hook; the infobox image would particularly work for alt0 as (though not the same match) it's playing for England in 2018.
Improved to Good Article status by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Keira Walsh; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- *General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
@Kingsif: the article is new enough, long enough and the first and second hook is interesting, though I think the third one may link too much and take away from the actual centrepiece of the hook. However, none of the hooks you proposed have been sourced in your nomination, please update it with a reliable source. TheBritinator (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TheBritinator: The QPQ is clearly listed and there is no requirement for a nom to list sources - but there is a requirement for reviewers to check the sources are in the article regardless. To wit, I deliberately disinclude sources in noms, to make sure reviewers actually do the checks they are supposed to. The nom is fine, the review is not. Kingsif (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Kingsif:, I am not aware of any requirement of listing sources, but it would be a act of good faith in speeding this process up if you could provide the sources of your hooks, given the size of the article. However, if you insist, I will look for it myself. TheBritinator (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TheBritinator: It is not me insisting, part of reviewing a DYK includes checking that 1. the hook fact is in the article, 2. the hook fact is sourced in the article, preferably directly in-line, and 3. the hook and article text is supported by sources in the article. You cannot do all this without going to the article and looking for yourself. As I said, I do not include sources in noms because lazy reviewers are liable to skip at least two of those things and just check the hook is supported by the source given in the nom, not bothering to check location of source in article or if the sources in nom are even used in article. Kingsif (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Go with the first hook. Found the sources here and here. TheBritinator (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TheBritinator: It is not me insisting, part of reviewing a DYK includes checking that 1. the hook fact is in the article, 2. the hook fact is sourced in the article, preferably directly in-line, and 3. the hook and article text is supported by sources in the article. You cannot do all this without going to the article and looking for yourself. As I said, I do not include sources in noms because lazy reviewers are liable to skip at least two of those things and just check the hook is supported by the source given in the nom, not bothering to check location of source in article or if the sources in nom are even used in article. Kingsif (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Kingsif:, I am not aware of any requirement of listing sources, but it would be a act of good faith in speeding this process up if you could provide the sources of your hooks, given the size of the article. However, if you insist, I will look for it myself. TheBritinator (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
