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) 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Review Good to go! Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK nomination was timely (moved from a user sand box to main space in a magnified form) and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. Hook references for main hook and Alt 1 are verified and cited. I prefer Alt 1 as I think it hookier. No copyright violations or too close paraphrasing. Earwig's copy violation detector report gives it a clean bill; the suspected "violation" does not look like a close paraphrase to me. All hooks relate directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited (except as noted above). QPQ confirmed. As to the offline sources, I WP:AGF and did not have access. Nicely done! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- n/a
Passes DYK checklist.
Good to go! Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK nomination was timely (moved from a user sand box to main space in a magnified form) and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. Hook references for main hook and Alt 1 are verified and cited. I prefer Alt 1 as I think it hookier. No copyright violations or too close paraphrasing. Earwig's copy violation detector report gives it a clean bill; the suspected "violation" does not look like a close paraphrase to me. All hooks relate directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited (except as noted above). QPQ confirmed. As to the offline sources, I WP:AGF and did not have access. Nicely done! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)