- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Victuallers (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Lesley Johnson
Created by Oronsay (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 10:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC).
- I will review this as per QPQ requirements. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- So, the hook is sourced to Google Books. I have sought assistance at WT:RS if this falls under WP:RS. We'll do a full review once they have an advice on this. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Can a hook have two sources? The bio has a reference to a review of the book and, separately, a ref for her position at Griffith University?--Oronsay (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- A hook can have several refs "The Antipodean, outstanding, Wikipedian who..." might require three. Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
| 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
|
|
|
Overall: 
Plagiarism: This originally was found to be "Violation Possible" but upon closer inspection the "violations" were proper names (which were rather long) and lengthy quote on why she was appointed Member of the Order of Australia. Hookinterest: To be honest it is uninteresting, but I've read through the article and cannot come up with a more interesting one. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The hook needs to be interesting to be promoted. You just said it wasn't. I agree with you also. She published a book, like so many people have done, and that book doesn't have an article. She also has a career, like so many people have, without saying anything interesting about it. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)- Howard the Duck SL93 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- If that's the case, we'd need an interesting hook for this to go. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm drawing a blank as well—Victuallers, got anything? Ping Kavyansh.Singh and EEng if not. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Alt1 might rise a bit above the "not interesting" judgement. @Oronsay: may have a view. If passed then this is a good candidate for Women's History Month. Victuallers (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Alt1 is just as uninteresting as Alt0. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm drawing a blank on a possible hook at the moment. I would suggest checking if there's anything known about her personal life and see if there could be something usable there. Otherwise I'd recommend marking the nomination for closure for not having anything hook-worthy. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Plagiarism: This originally was found to be "Violation Possible" but upon closer inspection the "violations" were proper names (which were rather long) and lengthy quote on why she was appointed Member of the Order of Australia. Hookinterest: To be honest it is uninteresting, but I've read through the article and cannot come up with a more interesting one. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
