Template:Did you know nominations/Edith Shackleton Heald

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Edith Shackleton Heald

edit

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 21:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

  • The article is new enough, long enough, and neutrally written. It's content flow is not fantastic, but perhaps understandable, in a somewhat obscure subject. No issues with verifiability. QPQ is complete. Here's my issue, though, and I'll admit that it is not 100% policy based: I would really like to find a hook that is not dependent on the subject's sexuality. Is that really all we can find that is "hooky" about the person? @Edwardx: what do you think? Vanamonde (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's been nearly three weeks without a response. Edwardx needs to reply soon for this nomination to continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I did have another look and I've just looked again, but am struggling to find anything else "hooky". Neither hook is negative or prurient, she's been dead over 40 years, her sexuality is widely documented, and she has no descendants. Edwardx (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The issue is not one of prurience, but that of reducing LGBTQ folks to their gender/sexual orientation; but okay. Vanamonde (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)