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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Overall: Funny that this is your first nomination, because this is my second review. We're both newbies here! This also means that my review probably warrants a second opinion. Anyway, this looks good. It has been newly made a Good Article, its long enough, I've verified the source, and its interesting. You are also correct, since this is your first DYK nomination, you are not obligated to do any QPQ. I can detect no problems with this nomination, and I hope to see it pass. I think either of the proposals would be good, but I think the second one would be better, as it makes it clear the the reader the scope of election. RoundSquare (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Funny that this is your first nomination, because this is my second review. We're both newbies here! This also means that my review probably warrants a second opinion. Anyway, this looks good. It has been newly made a Good Article, its long enough, I've verified the source, and its interesting. You are also correct, since this is your first DYK nomination, you are not obligated to do any QPQ. I can detect no problems with this nomination, and I hope to see it pass. I think either of the proposals would be good, but I think the second one would be better, as it makes it clear the the reader the scope of election. RoundSquare (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)