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 Montanabw(talk) 05:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Overall: This article is an intricately researched bit of work, and definitely qualifies as a great example of meticulous writing. I must concede AGF on the subject, but must confess being overwhelmed with the torrent of information released upon me. The hook qualifies in every way. Soman is to be commended for creating and donating a free use graphic for both this article and for use by other editors. Google searches for copy vio/paraphrase revealed matches with only the editor's workspaces. QPQ accepted on the basis that Soman performed all the steps of a DYK review. Given the axiom of AGF for factuality, this article is good to go DYK.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is an intricately researched bit of work, and definitely qualifies as a great example of meticulous writing. I must concede AGF on the subject, but must confess being overwhelmed with the torrent of information released upon me. The hook qualifies in every way. Soman is to be commended for creating and donating a free use graphic for both this article and for use by other editors. Google searches for copy vio/paraphrase revealed matches with only the editor's workspaces. QPQ accepted on the basis that Soman performed all the steps of a DYK review. Given the axiom of AGF for factuality, this article is good to go DYK.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)