- 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 Yoninah (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:43, 2 July 2016 (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
|
- Cited:
 - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
- Interesting:
|
Overall:
An interesting article, and a remarkable woman! This just completed the GA process, so it pretty easily meets the standards for DYK. There are no citations in the lede, but the lede only summarizes things covered in greater detail in the body of the article, where each paragraph indeed has one or more respectable citations. The hook is cited to a paywalled biography, but the abstract appears to support the general thrust, as does her biography as described elsewhere. Good to go!
Bryanrutherford0 (
talk) 19:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
An interesting article, and a remarkable woman! This just completed the GA process, so it pretty easily meets the standards for DYK. There are no citations in the lede, but the lede only summarizes things covered in greater detail in the body of the article, where each paragraph indeed has one or more respectable citations. The hook is cited to a paywalled biography, but the abstract appears to support the general thrust, as does her biography as described elsewhere. Good to go! Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)