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 97198 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Also it is still Dec. 27 in my time zone, so I the creation of the article is still within the last week and eligible for a DYK nom.
Created by Soulbust (talk). Self-nominated at 02:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC).
Overall: Well done. Riley1012 (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The article does not meet sourcing requirements. There is one citation needed tag, and the "List of matches" is entirely unsourced. Flibirigit (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The two images used in the article are not public domain in the United States. I will ask at WT:DYK for discussion. Flibirigit (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
These images should not be used on the main page. Kingsif (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I am satisfied that the images are okay for usage in this article only, as per above and this comment. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
QPQs are not reusable, even if they were originally used on a failed nomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy ping @Soulbust:, please provide a new QPQ for this nomnation, since the Tom Ubrani credit was already used. Also, please see the concerns noted above. Flibirigit (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Added the sourcing that was missing. Will do another qpq soon. Soulbust (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Please comment here when the QPQ is complete. Flibirigit (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I think it was more that I kinda mutually understood the two articles wouldn't be able to run as a two-article hook, so I was more than okay with having just the one article run on its own. I guess it since I didn't officially withdraw the nomination and resubmit it, then it failed but idk. I was told in that nomination that I could use the QPQ credit in the future if I officially took it back? I didn't "officially take it back" though, so I guess it would be moot in any case, but that is where my confusion came from. Sorry about that Soulbust (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the new QPQ. Since a double nomination was reviewed, it can be claimed for two single nominations. This is the first of two.Flibirigit (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Restoring approval of DYK since the sourcing and QPQ concerns are resolved. Flibirigit (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Well done. Riley1012 (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The article does not meet sourcing requirements. There is one citation needed tag, and the "List of matches" is entirely unsourced. Flibirigit (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
