Template:Did you know nominations/Aryness Joy Wickens


 * 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 21:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Aryness Joy Wickens

 * ... that as acting commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1954, Aryness Joy Wickens was the highest-paid woman in the US civil service?
 * Alt ... that as acting commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Aryness Joy Wickens was the highest-paid woman in the US civil service in 1954?


 * Reviewed: Wolkentanz

Created by David Eppstein (talk). Self-nominated at 21:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Everything looks good, but I only have one question on the hook:
 * 1) New enough (created 2 days before DYK) and long enough. The only thing I see here and that's more a MOS issue is the non-unified date format in the references. A copyvio check shows only hits on the proper office names, so looks good there. Sources look fine.
 * 2) The hook is fine (hook fact is verified) but I wonder if it might be better to move the "in 1954" to after the highest-paid part, (eg "was the highest-paid woman in the US civil service in 1954?") since it is as of that year that she was the highest paid (one could read that to say of all time which obviously is not the cast)
 * 3) QPQ is fine, there are no images on the page to worry about.
 * Just need to verify the hook's language but otherwise should be ready to go. --M ASEM (t) 16:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have no problem with moving the "in 1954" clause to the end. As for my reading of MOS:DATEUNIFY: it appears to me to say that publication dates should all be the same format (here Month DD, YYYY) and that access dates should all be the same format (here YYYY-MM-DD) but not that those two formats need to be the same as each other. See the second example under "Access and archive dates".  As for the different placement of dates in different references: I'm just using the citation style 2 templates (CS1 would be the same), and that's what they do. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah true, that is allowed. But as noted, only a MOS issue, not a DYK-passage issue. If you're fine with the ALT I added above, then I'll mark this ready. --M ASEM (t) 19:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg per ALT from discussion above. --M ASEM (t) 19:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)