Talk:Thelma Farr Baxter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 MeegsC (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created by DanCherek (talk). Self-nominated at 02:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi DanCherek, what a nicely written article, review follows: article created 30 March; article exceeds minimum length; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; Couple of queries on citations:
  • "Farr was re-elected the following year after defeating three primary opponents" is in the lead but not in the main body of the text and is uncited
  • that she left office on "January 3, 1956" is in the infobox but not the main text and is uncited, you could also presumably add her start date as "November 1950"?

I didn't find any issues with overly close paraphrasing from a spotcheck on some of the sources; hooks are both in the article, referenced and check out to the newspaper articles cited; a QPQ has been carried out. Will be good to run once the two minor citation issues are resolved - Dumelow (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dumelow! I have added additional information about the primary to the body and clarified this in the lead (four, not three, opponents — an oversight), and have added the January 3, 1956, detail as well with a reference. I haven't specified November 1950 as the start date as I've seen instances in other Mississippi special elections around that time where they weren't sworn in until December or January, but I wasn't able to find a specific source for Farr besides [4], which just says 1950. Any further suggestions welcome. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]