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) 05:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
This sounds like a fascinating book! The article is new enough and long enough. The hook is intriguing just for saying what the book is (kind of necessary in this case), and while I find it accurate, I do also have the worry that the Manchester University Press description might be a bit of a primary source. I've done some copyediting in the "Reception" section and removed a newspaper quote that seemed overly long without doing anything. QPQ present. Well done, would approve generally anyway but I do suggest taking a look at the citations around the hook.
Raymie (
t •
c) 04:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Clarified with secondary source.
Whispyhistory (
talk) 04:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
That definitely helps.
Raymie (
t •
c) 23:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@
Whispyhistory and
Philafrenzy: Hello, I came to promote this, but I think the "Reception" section would work better as a prose section as opposed to a list.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Restoring tick as this is not a DYK concern.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 05:36, 23 August 2018 (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) 05:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
This sounds like a fascinating book! The article is new enough and long enough. The hook is intriguing just for saying what the book is (kind of necessary in this case), and while I find it accurate, I do also have the worry that the Manchester University Press description might be a bit of a primary source. I've done some copyediting in the "Reception" section and removed a newspaper quote that seemed overly long without doing anything. QPQ present. Well done, would approve generally anyway but I do suggest taking a look at the citations around the hook.
Raymie (
t •
c) 04:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Clarified with secondary source.
Whispyhistory (
talk) 04:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
That definitely helps.
Raymie (
t •
c) 23:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@
Whispyhistory and
Philafrenzy: Hello, I came to promote this, but I think the "Reception" section would work better as a prose section as opposed to a list.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Restoring tick as this is not a DYK concern.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 05:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)