Template:Did you know nominations/Natural approach

The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Natural approach

(

)

... that the natural approach is a method of language teaching in which teachers are recommended never to force their students to speak?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bommer Canyon
Comment: The hook is sourced from the "outline" section. The quote in that section "Speech production comes slowly and is never forced" comes from here, but for some reason that particular page is now no longer viewable through Google Books. The general idea is expounded on the previous page (p.31) as well, however.
Also, the page was created in my userspace back in December, and I finally got around to moving it to mainspace on the 16th March.

Created/expanded by Mr. Stradivarius (talk). Self nom at 10:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting article but it does not qualify for DYK on the grounds that it is not new enough. It was started by the author in December 2011, expanded considerably in February 2012 and more work was done on March 16th 2012. The 5x expansion took place in mid-February and not recently. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at WP:WIADYK, you will see that "Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." So the important date is March 16, when I moved it from my userspace. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right, I missed that - it is not at all obvious when looking at the history of the article. The article is new enough, long enough and within policy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)