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) 21:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Overall: The body of the article would be more readable (and look less like a stub) with paragraphs and subheadings. For example you could split it at least at the two Olympics entries. I am happy with either hook. It's a worthwhile article - thank you for this. Storye book (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
. Thank you - that works well. I have corrected a typo on the article page, and removed the remaining biography stub classification from the talk page. It's up to you (or another editor) to add a new biography class rating. Meanwhile, it's good to go for DYK. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's long enough, but you need to remove the stub categories from the talk page.
The body of the article would be more readable (and look less like a stub) with paragraphs and subheadings. For example you could split it at least at the two Olympics entries. I am happy with either hook. It's a worthwhile article - thank you for this. Storye book (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
. Thank you - that works well. I have corrected a typo on the article page, and removed the remaining biography stub classification from the talk page. It's up to you (or another editor) to add a new biography class rating. Meanwhile, it's good to go for DYK. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)