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.
Overall: Everything looks good, but there is a merge discussion still active. It would probably be best to wait until that is closed before this is approved. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@PCN02WPS: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720 and BeanieFan11: I pinged the creator of the merge discussion and another user who voted to merge when I completed the rewrite earlier this month. My pings aren't getting responses so I'm not quite sure how to proceed at this time with the discussion. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720, BeanieFan11, and PCN02WPS: Since the nomination has been stuck for a while, I'm not seeing a consensus for a merge at this time and the discussion appears to have petered out (no new discussion in over a month). Perhaps it's time to close that request and move forward with the nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed as no consensus. Full review needed.--Launchballer 09:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Was 5x expanded. I find ALT1 the most interesting. It is confirmed and cited in the article. The article is neutral, and uses the correct inline citations. Earwig does not reveal plagiarism and the qpq is done. Bruxton (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)