Template:Did you know nominations/Julianne Adams

Julianne Adams

 * ... that Julianne Adams (pictured) was recruited as a wheelchair basketball player while still in a hospital bed following the accident that severed her spine?
 * Reviewed: HMS Ark Royal (1914)

Created/expanded by LauraHale (talk). Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 20:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I'm a little concerned about the closeness of the paraphrasing to the main source used in the article. The "Wheelchair basketball national team" section is very similar to that source.  Further, as it is an address by the lady in question it counts as a primary source.  Perhaps it is far enough away from the original to be accepted but I am concerned about it.  An additional, secondary source would help too.
 * Everything else checks out - the length (expansion) and date meet requirements. The image has an OTRS and looks to be okay for main page use.  The hook is fine if we accept the primary source.
 * Can somebody please give this nomination a second opinion? violet/riga [talk] 00:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hansard is fact checked to make sure that everything it is truth, and it isn't a verbatim account of what was said unless it was accurate. As I understand it, primary sources are okay for facts. This search doesn't seem to indicate any real problems with matching phrases. :/ If you could point to specific problems, I would be happy to fix them. --LauraHale (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be possible to fact-check every single part of every political speech in two weeks, as the Hansard website says. There must be some fact-checking, but I can't imagine that it'd be too deep. Primary sources should be used carefully, but I think their use is OK here. However we really should be able to find another (preferably secondary) source for the first two sentences of the "Wheelchair basketball national team" section, because that wasn't just *her* personal experience. I can't find any paraphrasing issues either, but the structure is a bit close to that of the original source ... that can't be helped though. My comments should not be taken as a second opinion, because I'm too close to the article to provide that impartially. Graham 87 04:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg No second opinion offered but after looking through it again I'm satisfied that, while the structure/order is similar, there isn't a paraphrasing issue. violet/riga [talk] 23:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'd be happy if this was posted even with out the picture. :D --LauraHale (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)