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
Edge3 (
talk) 15:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
ElijahPepe: What
FormalDude said regarding maintenance templates. Otherwise, this is new enough and long enough. Hook short enough and sourced. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found. QPQ unnecessary. I'd like to see the maintenance template addressed before I approve this.--Launchballer 23:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The nominator has not responded to the above review despite a ping last month and a recent talk page message.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 16:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @
FormalDude and
Narutolovehinata5:. I've done some citation work on this article. Would you be willing to re-review this one? Thanks. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 21:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that this is no longer on
T:TDYK anyway and would need to be readded, I note that there is still a tag on the article, in the Contents section. Possibly worth siphoning off?--Launchballer 10:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi
Launchballer. Thank you for your feedback. There's consensus against splitting on the talk page, so I went ahead and removed that. I also added it to
T:TDYK just now. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 10:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any further reason to hold this up then. Let's go.--Launchballer 10:45, 2 July 2023 (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
Edge3 (
talk) 15:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
ElijahPepe: What
FormalDude said regarding maintenance templates. Otherwise, this is new enough and long enough. Hook short enough and sourced. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found. QPQ unnecessary. I'd like to see the maintenance template addressed before I approve this.--Launchballer 23:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The nominator has not responded to the above review despite a ping last month and a recent talk page message.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 16:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @
FormalDude and
Narutolovehinata5:. I've done some citation work on this article. Would you be willing to re-review this one? Thanks. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 21:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that this is no longer on
T:TDYK anyway and would need to be readded, I note that there is still a tag on the article, in the Contents section. Possibly worth siphoning off?--Launchballer 10:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi
Launchballer. Thank you for your feedback. There's consensus against splitting on the talk page, so I went ahead and removed that. I also added it to
T:TDYK just now. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 10:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any further reason to hold this up then. Let's go.--Launchballer 10:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)