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
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 23:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Article is long enough and new enough. Proposed hooks are short enough and interesting enough. Both of the hook facts are supported by incline citations to what appear to be reliable sources. Application of duplication detector to the two principal sources reveals only one close match, and that's a lengthy passage that is in quotation marks and attributed. Article is neutral and uses inline citations. QPQ has been completed. Both of these hooks check out. Good to go.
Cbl62 (
talk) 04:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
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
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 23:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Article is long enough and new enough. Proposed hooks are short enough and interesting enough. Both of the hook facts are supported by incline citations to what appear to be reliable sources. Application of duplication detector to the two principal sources reveals only one close match, and that's a lengthy passage that is in quotation marks and attributed. Article is neutral and uses inline citations. QPQ has been completed. Both of these hooks check out. Good to go.
Cbl62 (
talk) 04:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)