Template:Did you know nominations/Laurel van der Wal


 * 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 Victuallers (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Laurel van der Wal

 * ... that Laurel van der Wal (pictured) was a fashion model and a rocket scientist?
 * Comment: Article created as part of "She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon, Part III," 27 March 2015.
 * Reviewed:Domenico Lalli
 * Reviewed:Domenico Lalli

Created/expanded by Penny Richards (talk). Self nominated at 18:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Wow! She's like scientist and supermodel Symmetra! EEng (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Interesting multiple career, good sources, including for hook facts. I would find "show girl" even more attractive than fashion model, "solve the challenges on maintaining human life in space" more interesting than "rocket scientist". What do you think of mentioning this great line: "I am impatient with people who do not make full use of their capabilities.", at least in the article? - Please add a few categories to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the long list of occupations would really "make" the hook --
 * ALT1 ... that Laurel van der Wal (pictured)—‌cop, showgirl, art instructor, aircraft mechanic, switchman, casino shill, and rocket scientist—‌was "impatient with people who do not make full use of all their capabilities"?

-- but to do that (this is exactly 199 chars) I had to drop a few from the list, and apply extreme compression to the rest e.g. deputy sheriff --> cop and railroad switchtower operator --> switchman (a word which makes and ironic point in context). I've linked selectively, to those occupations I think readers may find unfamiliar. Material will need to be added to article from. EEng (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that work of love! A matter of taste ;) - I would like some in a list but no links (every link other than the subject takes interest away, - Andy convinced me of that as of the usefulness of infoboxes). Perhaps get rocket scientist even before her name, because otherwise I am afraid people will stop reading after four of them? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the complement, but I would think a sophisticate like yourself would know that hookers don't work for love -- in fact, it's an occupational hazard we try hard to avoid. Anyway, I'm fine with dropping the links but moving rocket scientist before her name would require additional grammatical machinery for which there's no space. But it can go to the head of the list. An inspiration lets me work in model too!
 * ALT2 ... that Laurel van der Wal (pictured)—‌rocket scientist, cop, model, showgirl, art teacher, aircraft mechanic, switchman, casino shill—‌was "impatient with people who do not make full use of all their capabilities"? EEng (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a hook I would approve, - if the main editor agrees and puts the details in the article. One has to respect the will of the main editors, as you will have learned before me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, and I'll put the details in the article (I'll also do my QPQ, haven't had a chance yet, just got in from hosting a kid's birthday party to see all this excellent feedback). Thanks all, I'll get on this tonight.Penny Richards (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Necessary additions made to article. Off to do QPQ now.Penny Richards (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I had this on my mental list to review, but I see I got beat to it. It's a really nice job and it's good there are people out there addressing WP's systemic biases by researching and writing articles like these.  I did add some categories to the article last night as well as the 'persondata' fields.  I also took a look at the image's licensing and I think it's okay.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words!Penny Richards (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)