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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Overall: New enough, long enough. Seems adequately sourced and neutral. Earwig's Copyvio Detector stands at 16.7% so it seems to be free from plagiarism. Hook cited and interesting. QPQ done. Everything seems OK to me, well done! Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Staberinde: The article is tagged as needing a copy edit. SL93 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, another editor did some copy editing after the article was tagged, but as I am not a native speaker I am not really sure if that is sufficient to remove the tag or not.--Staberinde (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I made some edits and removed the copyedit tag. Can you have a look to see if it's OK now? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I did streamline infobox a bit though as it felt getting somewhat disproportionately large compared to the rest of article, seems all good now.--Staberinde (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Restoring tick. SL93 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
New enough, long enough. Seems adequately sourced and neutral. Earwig's Copyvio Detector stands at 16.7% so it seems to be free from plagiarism. Hook cited and interesting. QPQ done. Everything seems OK to me, well done! Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Staberinde: The article is tagged as needing a copy edit. SL93 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)