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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria - newness and length. A bit on the shorter side, but, meets DYK minimums. Start class biography. Article is well sourced and has no issues with tone. Earwig's copvio detector does not surface any major issues. Hook 1 is sourced to a Californian article from the 90s, made available via newspapers.com. Hook is verified by the source. I am assuming that the movie watching public know of this film and hence contributing to the hook's interestingness. The second hook is also sourced to the Californian made available through newspapers.com. Both hooks are used in the article. QPQ is done. Solid nomination. All green. Well done. Ktin (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Article meets eligibility criteria - newness and length. A bit on the shorter side, but, meets DYK minimums. Start class biography. Article is well sourced and has no issues with tone. Earwig's copvio detector does not surface any major issues. Hook 1 is sourced to a Californian article from the 90s, made available via newspapers.com. Hook is verified by the source. I am assuming that the movie watching public know of this film and hence contributing to the hook's interestingness. The second hook is also sourced to the Californian made available through newspapers.com. Both hooks are used in the article. QPQ is done. Solid nomination. All green. Well done. Ktin (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)