Template:Did you know nominations/Carina Vance Mafla

The following discussion 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 Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Carina Vance Mafla

(

)

... that Carina Vance Mafla's campaign to shut down "torture clinics" that try to turn lesbians straight began years before she was appointed Ecuador's Minister for Public Health?

Reviewed: We Can Do It!
Comment: I'm iffy about the phrasing, let me know what you think.

Created/expanded by Roscelese (talk). Self nom at 06:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can not find where the hook is in the article. It mentions she was the director of Fundacion Causana, but does not mention when it started and what its activities were. Can you provide it? Anyway, word count good (though article is still a stub), sourced to reasonably reliable sources. Also optional: I'm curious what the negative reactions were, so if you can find any, it would be nice if you can add them too to balance the POV somewhat (unless of course, you can't find any). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In what way would adding negative reactions to her nomination balance the POV? The article includes no positive reactions and incorporates all or nearly all the RS I found at the time I wrote it. I don't (and we shouldn't) go searching for poorly sourced negative commentary on living people out of a misguided sense of balance. As for the hook fact, I've added a slight bit on how long the group had been working on this issue. Does that work? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said to search for poorly sourced ones. I was curious if there were any negative reactions at all (that they be from reliable sources is already implicit in that), and as I've already said it was up to you. And yes that's better, can you please tweak the wording a bit more though? The second and third sentences are mouthfuls.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw a few positive reactions which I didn't add because I didn't feel they were very encyclopedic, and no negative reactions. Is the wordiness decreased now? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I split the sentences some more. Looks good to go now.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)