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.
Overall: The phrasing in the hook makes it sound like women were radicalized into supporting issues, as opposed to acting against them. A more appropriate phrasing might be this:
ALT1: ... that Sandra Elkin discussing basic information on women's topics on Woman "radicalized" women into supporting women's rights? CJ-Moki (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and just removed the last word in the main hook, since it's not really a suggestion for an entirely alternative hook, but just that one word. And I agree with your reasoning on removing it, CJ-Moki. Does that work? SilverserenC 00:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@Silver seren and CJ-Moki: there are four occasions of women's/Woman/women in a seventeen word sentence. Any way we could decrease the repetition a little? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
If you'd like, CJ-Moki. I kinda did the repetition of woman and women on purpose because I thought it made the hook more fun and interesting. SilverserenC 23:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The phrasing in the hook makes it sound like women were radicalized into supporting issues, as opposed to acting against them. A more appropriate phrasing might be this:
Yes, that works. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
