Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine T. Hunt

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 sst^flyer 01:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Even if you screwed up the title, it is best to avoid moving DYK nomination subpages.

Catherine T. Hunt[edit]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... ~~that Catherine T. Hunt, the 2007 president of the American Chemical Society, was also a director at Dow Chemical Company?~~

ALT1: that Catherine T. Hunt, the 2007 president of the American Chemical Society, won the society's first election to use Internet voting?
Reviewed: Elysia grandifolia
Comment: Serendipity nomination. I googled Hunt yesterday for something at work, saw her article was just a stub, and then noticed Rosiestep had just created it the day before. So I added some content but didn't get around to nominating it yesterday, and in the meantime YeOldeGentleman expanded it. Sometimes this wiki thing works apparently? :) And the fact that the ACS just got around to online voting in 2007 is kind of retroactively blowing my mind. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Created by Rosiestep (talk), Opabinia regalis (talk), and YeOldeGentleman (talk). Nominated by Opabinia regalis (talk) at 00:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC).

Always good to see editors working together. New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. The first hook is problematic. The ACS source calls her, "the former R&D Director of Innovation Sourcing & Sustainable Technologies at The Dow Chemical Company". The reasonable inference from the hook is that she was a main board director. I do a lot of editing on companies, and this does not sound like a main board post. The hook also suggests that the two positions may have been concurrent and this might imply a conflict of interest. Bearing in mind WP:BLP, we should avoid such a negative possibility in a hook. ALT1 (which I've trimmed a bit) is fine and with a solid citation. Spot checking with dup detector found no close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. Article is NPOV. If we can strike or reword the first hook, it should be good to go. Edwardx (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Edwardx: Hmm, good point, I didn't really think about perceived COI because ACS has plenty of industry chemists. Let's just go with ALT1 then. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - hooks are often unintentionally open to a variety of interpretations, and we have to try to anticipate what those might be. That's why multiple editors generally make better articles/hooks. Anyway, we're good to go. Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)