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) 23:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Sexify edit

Improved to Good Article status by Aoba47 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC).

  • Recent promoted good article. Article is referenced and so are the hooks and interesting. No image for the hook. No copyright or neutrality issues detected. QPQ is done. Good to go.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I would imagine the first hook would be the best as it is more concise, but I would be happy with either being used. Aoba47 (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Thank you for the message. Here is another source to support the first hook 1 that should be more appropriate. The source (Fuse) for the second hook should be appropriate. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: that looks good. Could you add it to the article? Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Restoring tick per KAVEBEAR's review. Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)