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 Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
QPQ: - Not done Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Epicgenius, the QPQ checker has never credited me correctly. I think it's because of the unorthodox way I archive my userpage, unfortunately (but I am an old woman and don't intend to change my ways). I do owe a QPQ so this isn't quite ready yet; have dibsed an article and am planning to do the review tonight. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Epicgenius there, my sense of honor is fulfilled ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Epicgenius and Premeditated Chaos: I like this for the image slot and I see this line in the article: For the clothing tag on the items, he encased locks of his own hair inside of clear plastic squares. This referenced the practice of Victorian-era prostitutes selling locks of hair as well as the general practice of people keeping a lock of hair as a memento or trophy but the inline citation that follows does not seem to support the sentences. Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Really? It's quite clearly there on page 107. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies @Premeditated Chaos and PMC: Doh. I was reviewing the wrong page and my internal searches were inadequate. Lightburst (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)