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 Rlink2 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria - newness and length. I would have preferred more sections rather than just the lone 'history' section -- but, article does meet minimum expectations. Article is sourced to local newspapers of the time. Do not see issues with tone. Earwig's does not throw any issues with Copyvios. Though, I suspect this is because Earwig's does not compare against pdf scans. That said, I could not spot any issues either. Hook is cited in the pdf scan of the newspaper. Reasonably interesting. QPQ done. Marking this hook as approved. Ktin (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Article meets eligibility criteria - newness and length. I would have preferred more sections rather than just the lone 'history' section -- but, article does meet minimum expectations. Article is sourced to local newspapers of the time. Do not see issues with tone. Earwig's does not throw any issues with Copyvios. Though, I suspect this is because Earwig's does not compare against pdf scans. That said, I could not spot any issues either. Hook is cited in the pdf scan of the newspaper. Reasonably interesting. QPQ done. Marking this hook as approved. Ktin (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)