The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk 23:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by Thriley ( talk), ForsythiaJo ( talk), and Rublamb ( talk). Nominated by Thriley ( talk) at 21:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Patricia Schultz; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: - Pending
Overall:
Hook is interesting and cited (I added a slightly differently phrased alt). The article and sources look good, but is there something other than FORBESCON that we can use for the 100 Reasons to See the World book? Although technically, I think it's fine because it just counts as a self published source for a neutral fact. Once qpq is done this should be ready.
BuySomeApples (
talk) 04:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@ BuySomeApples: Thank you for the review. I don't have much issue with the FORBESCON as there is nothing controversial cited to it. Feel free to remove it if you feel differently. Thriley ( talk) 23:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk 23:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by Thriley ( talk), ForsythiaJo ( talk), and Rublamb ( talk). Nominated by Thriley ( talk) at 21:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Patricia Schultz; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: - Pending
Overall:
Hook is interesting and cited (I added a slightly differently phrased alt). The article and sources look good, but is there something other than FORBESCON that we can use for the 100 Reasons to See the World book? Although technically, I think it's fine because it just counts as a self published source for a neutral fact. Once qpq is done this should be ready.
BuySomeApples (
talk) 04:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@ BuySomeApples: Thank you for the review. I don't have much issue with the FORBESCON as there is nothing controversial cited to it. Feel free to remove it if you feel differently. Thriley ( talk) 23:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)