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 97198 (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Overall: Article is long enough, has adequate sourcing, and the hook is verifiable. However, the article has a bit too much close paraphrasingfor my liking. I also think that this article's hook could be better to be something like this:
@Spodle I updated the first hook to your suggestion and made some changes to the content of the article. Hope it's better now. Isi96 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Isi96: Close paraphrasing is much less noticeable. Nom ready for DYK. SpodleTalk 01:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)