Template:Did you know nominations/History of Canadian women

  The following is an archived discussion of History of Canadian women's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination's (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the DYK WikiProject's (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

History of Canadian women

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the history of Canadian women, a group which comprises half the population, has until recent years only accounted for a tiny fraction of the historiography?

Created/expanded by Rjensen (talk) on 27 December 2012. Self nom at 00:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Listed "History of Canadian women" DYK nomination for discussion.
• New article on major subject.

Article

The article looks to be written from scratch and was only 3 days old and huge when nominated. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

All but 2 of 64 references are offline, so not much hope of checking for copyright violations. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hook

Hook is also first sentence of article, has inline citation to offline reference. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it correct English to say that "the history ... comprises half the population"? Would a better verb be "concerns", "covers", or "is about"? -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Other

No indication that nominator has reviewed another nomination. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• A quid pro quo review is not required if the nominator has five or fewer nominations; as best I can tell, this is only Rjensen's second, so not QPQ review is necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I changed the hook to get this going. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• It seems ridiculous to me that this was left uncleared over confusion over QPQ and grammar. Good to go. The C of E God save The Queen! (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)