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
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 20:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by
Jaguar (
talk). Self-nominated at 21:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC).
This article has been promoted to
GA status recently enough, is more than long enough (over 6,000 characters by my count), and within policy so far as I can determine (it is well written, neutral, very well cited, and
free of any copyright-related issues; note the repeated use of short direct quotes from reviewers that really enhance the article). The hook and alternate are both short enough, fairly interesting (I prefer the alternate on this front), both are cited properly with inline citations to verifiable references, and they are certainly neutral. Furthermore,
QPQ has been done. Accepting the offline sources in good faith (although note that I have been able to verify both of the hooks with online sources), I believe that this article is good to go. Nice work,
Jaguar!
Michael Barera (
talk) 05:32, 24 February 2017 (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
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 20:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by
Jaguar (
talk). Self-nominated at 21:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC).
This article has been promoted to
GA status recently enough, is more than long enough (over 6,000 characters by my count), and within policy so far as I can determine (it is well written, neutral, very well cited, and
free of any copyright-related issues; note the repeated use of short direct quotes from reviewers that really enhance the article). The hook and alternate are both short enough, fairly interesting (I prefer the alternate on this front), both are cited properly with inline citations to verifiable references, and they are certainly neutral. Furthermore,
QPQ has been done. Accepting the offline sources in good faith (although note that I have been able to verify both of the hooks with online sources), I believe that this article is good to go. Nice work,
Jaguar!
Michael Barera (
talk) 05:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)