Template:Did you know nominations/Women in law in the United Kingdom

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Nominator has done nothing to address the concerns noted at WT:DYK and here, and clearly thinks it's not their responsibility to do so; this nomination is closed.

Women in law in the United Kingdom

(

)

... that until 1919 women in the United Kingdom were not permitted to practice law?

Reviewed: Fred Thomas (athlete)

Created by GiantSnowman (talk). Self-nominated at 08:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC).

Date, length and hook all OK. Though @GiantSnowman:, I would suggest merging those one or two sentence paragraphs. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Putting a hold on this based on the discussion at WT:DYK#Template:Did you know nominations/Women in law in the United Kingdom. The issues raised there need to be addressed before it can be featured on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Superseding the hold; there have been no edits by nominator GiantSnowman since the issues were first raised on the DYK talk page. According to the thread there, the article mentions English women in law without addressing ones in the rest of the United Kingdom, which runs right against WP:DYKSG#D7: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. Completely omitting three of four countries comes under this, and I imagine it will be significant work to cover them in similar depth to England. As it stands, the article is a rather arbitrary collection of women and dates and facts and one-sentence paragraphs (over half of which start "In 19xx"); it could use more organization and more narrative. It needs significant work if this nomination is to be viable. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Another seven days have passed, and GiantSnowman has still made no edits to the article to address the issues raised. Marking nomination for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

And like I said at WT:DYK, if editors are that concerned about the article then why don't they try and improve it themselves, given they have access to all the wonderful resources I don't? Giant Snowman 18:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that you were offered a number of useful sources and potential additions to address the issues with the article in that thread, and this is your nomination, it's expected that you at least make an effort to improve your article so it meets DYK standards. Since you haven't, and clearly don't intend to, I'm closing this nomination now. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)