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) 21:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
"highest for a decade" --> "highest in a decade"??? Maybe it's one of the Oxford things. Or Cambridge.
EEng (
talk) 04:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Recently promoted to GA, long enough, well referenced and neutral. No close paraphrasing found. The hook is interesting and supported by an inline citation. Re: "for" vs. "in", I think both work. (For what it's worth, the source says "the highest ratio for 10 years". Anyhoo, good to go.
97198 (
talk) 08:54, 5 August 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) 21:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
"highest for a decade" --> "highest in a decade"??? Maybe it's one of the Oxford things. Or Cambridge.
EEng (
talk) 04:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Recently promoted to GA, long enough, well referenced and neutral. No close paraphrasing found. The hook is interesting and supported by an inline citation. Re: "for" vs. "in", I think both work. (For what it's worth, the source says "the highest ratio for 10 years". Anyhoo, good to go.
97198 (
talk) 08:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)