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 Yoninah (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Overall: Short, but well-cited article expanded within seven days of the nomination. Article is long enough, with no evidence of neutrality issues or close-paraphrasing (as the article primarily translates numerical results into prose). The hook is of acceptable length and cited in the article (albeit with a different source than the one used in this nomination. The PDF might be a little easier to navigate than the site, so nominator may want to consider using it in the actual article, particularly as the Olympic sites tend to crumble in the years following the Games). QPQ done and thus this is good to go. CanadianPaul 08:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Short, but well-cited article expanded within seven days of the nomination. Article is long enough, with no evidence of neutrality issues or close-paraphrasing (as the article primarily translates numerical results into prose). The hook is of acceptable length and cited in the article (albeit with a different source than the one used in this nomination. The PDF might be a little easier to navigate than the site, so nominator may want to consider using it in the actual article, particularly as the Olympic sites tend to crumble in the years following the Games). QPQ done and thus this is good to go. Canadian Paul 08:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)