- 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 Allen3 talk 13:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Kimberly Bryant (technologist)
edit
Created by FloNight (talk). Nominated by Miyagawa (talk) at 20:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC).
- Just a quick note to say that it would be suitable for women's history day/month. Miyagawa (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK checklist template
| 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:
I checked length on JavaScript Kit, knocking out all the inessentials, and measured its length at 1,817 characters. Rather an interesting article; it never occurred to me to wonder if African-American female students faced any particular barriers in learning coding. Two petty observations aimed at improvement: 1) changing "during after school" to "in after school" would clarify that sentence; 2) the term "Black Girls Code" could be linked in the body of the article as well as in the lead. Still, this article is GTG on all counts. Let's speed this onto the front page for Women's History, shall we?
Georgejdorner (
talk) 20:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I checked length on JavaScript Kit, knocking out all the inessentials, and measured its length at 1,817 characters. Rather an interesting article; it never occurred to me to wonder if African-American female students faced any particular barriers in learning coding. Two petty observations aimed at improvement: 1) changing "during after school" to "in after school" would clarify that sentence; 2) the term "Black Girls Code" could be linked in the body of the article as well as in the lead. Still, this article is GTG on all counts. Let's speed this onto the front page for Women's History, shall we?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)