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 Kingsiftalk 22:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Overall: Thank you for an interesting article. I have three comments that I think should be addressed. 1. The external link for the patent goes to a page that says access 'unauthorized'. There is a Wikipedia template for patents (see page here [1]) and that would be a good option for the external link. 2. The article could also use more categories related to her education, for example alumni of MIT and Stanford. 3. The final point I am not sure how to handle. Right now the bold is to Mabel MacFerran, but that is actually a redirect to Mabel MacFerran Rockwell. The DYK guidelines indicate that the hook cannot include a redirect. I see two options, but I don't know which is the better choice in terms of what name she is mostly commonly known by. I think you can either (i) change the bold text to Mabel MacFerran Rockwell, or (ii) move the pages so that the primary page is Mabel MacFerran.
Nice job on the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I have responded to your suggestions and added additional content to the page. I think it should be good to go. Thank you for all of your help -- this was my first article for Wikipedia. TheEngineerHistorian (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to @TheEngineerHistorian: for making the changes to the article and nomination. All issues have been resolved and this is ready to go. DaffodilOcean (talk)
@TheEngineerHistorian and DaffodilOcean: the claim in the hook only exists, uncited, in the lead. Per WP:DYKHOOKCITE, it needs to occur in the body of the article with an end-of-sentence citation. It seems the claim is specifically made on page 95 of the source, and this should be specifically cited as the page in the article text. It also says "the only woman to have an active part in the electrical installations" which is a little bit different than the hook, which claims she worked on designing them. Happy to promote the hook once these issues are resolved. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
@Darth Stabro and DaffodilOcean: I have added the claim into the body of the article and added an end of sentence citation. I actually used a different reference than the other part of the paragraph because it says explicitly that she was the only woman involved in the design and installation of the power generating machinery for Hoover Dam. Then, while I was at it, I added this information to the main Hoover Dam article under the section Labor Force. I figure that people are more likely to go looking for info on Hoover Dam, and then they can discover Mabel! Thanks again for all of the help in getting my debut article in shape!TheEngineerHistorian (talk)
This change looks good to me, and thanks to @Darth Stabro: for catching this. I am still pretty new to reviewing at DYK, so I definitely make mistakes. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
@TheEngineerHistorian and DaffodilOcean: not to be a nag, but now the line in the article is a word-for-word copy of the source. It needs to be rewritten/paraphrased in your own words. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
@Darth Stabro and DaffodilOcean: not a nag at all because it was a question I had when I was making the revision and didn't know Wikipedia's policy on it. I have seen the exact same sentence multiple places on the internet, including Mabel's entry on the Engineer & Technology History Wiki. (https://ethw.org/Mabel_MacFerran_Rockwell) When you see the same sentence multiple times, when does it become "common knowledge" versus plagiarism? Other variations on the sentence include "She was the only woman to have an active part in the electrical installations at Boulder Dam." (Goff) or "the only woman to participate in the creation of the electrical installations at the Hoover Dam." (Tietjen) Regardless, I have gone ahead and re-worded the sentence so that it is not exactly the same as any other one that I have come across. Hopefully it is now good to go. TheEngineerHistorian (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for an interesting article. I have three comments that I think should be addressed. 
Thanks to @TheEngineerHistorian: for making the changes to the article and nomination. All issues have been resolved and this is ready to go. DaffodilOcean (talk)
@TheEngineerHistorian and DaffodilOcean: the claim in the hook only exists, uncited, in the lead. Per WP:DYKHOOKCITE, it needs to occur in the body of the article with an end-of-sentence citation. It seems the claim is specifically made on page 95 of the source, and this should be specifically cited as the page in the article text. It also says "the only woman to have an active part in the electrical installations" which is a little bit different than the hook, which claims she worked on designing them. Happy to promote the hook once these issues are resolved. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
