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 sst✈discuss 13:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Review Good to go! New article, timely nominated. 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 and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. In passing, I note that I did not have access to the offline sources and only limited access to those that are "subscription required." I also do not read Hebrew, so I could not compare those sources. As to those I would WP:AGF; and given the authors' history I would expect compliance with all WP policies. Earwig's copy violation detector: Temerl Bergson report gives it a clean bill. Hook is hooky enough, I think, and relates directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ done (review complete), although article is not yet promoted (which is not a requirement). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- n/a
Passes DYK checklist.
Good to go! New article, timely nominated. 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 and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. In passing, I note that I did not have access to the offline sources and only limited access to those that are "subscription required." I also do not read Hebrew, so I could not compare those sources. As to those I would WP:AGF; and given the authors' history I would expect compliance with all WP policies. Earwig's copy violation detector: Temerl Bergson report gives it a clean bill. Hook is hooky enough, I think, and relates directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ done (review complete), although article is not yet promoted (which is not a requirement). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)