- The following discussion 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 Orlady (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Beatrice Kerr
edit.jpg)
- ... that while performing as "Australia's Champion Lady Swimmer and Diver", Beatrice Kerr (pictured) saved two Blackpool boys from drowning?
- Comment: Not a self nomination
Created/expanded by IgnorantArmies (talk). Nominated by Allen3 (talk) at 20:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Length, date, sourcing, hook all check. 69.237.151.243 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
While new reviewers are warmly welcomed, I think it's a good idea that a review that's the second edit by a new user be rechecked prior to final approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
There are couple things that would be nice to see before this article hits the main page, mostly involving the the lead. First, the lead could use a little WP:MOS work and some paragraph break. Right now it looks a little jumbled with several awkward sentences. Also, while WP:LEAD states that not everything in the section needs to have a reference citation there is one strong claim involving the challenges to Annette Kellerman that certainly merits a citation. One of the refs, from the Australian Dictionary of Biography, looks like it would suffice and I noticed there is a lot of material in that source that is not included in the article. I would encourage the author or nominator to take another look at that ref since some of that missing material could be fruitful for a more "punchier" hook such as Ms. Kerr's "Flying Honey Pot" maneuver or her "daring" 5 pound swimsuits. AgneCheese/Wine 06:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Claim in lead is now supported by the citation mentioned, and reworded so it doesn't go beyond what the source supports. As this is a DYK-level article, there is no requirement that MOS be fully adhered to, nor that additional material be added to the article at this time ("nice to see" is not a reason to withhold approval); DYKcheck gives the size of the article as 2610 prose characters, far more than needed here. New reviewer needed to see whether the article does meet all DYK standards, or whether the prose issues mentioned above are sufficient to hold it back. I thought the hook was pretty interesting myself, and as nominator and author do not seem to be interested in expanding the article further, the offered ideas for other hooks would seem to be moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Everything checks out to my eyes. Article is definitely at DYK level. I agree with Agne27 that it's an interesting article, and it would be good to see it expanded in future, but it's in a good condition for the front page. Hook is interesting to me too. Go go go! Moswento talky 10:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)