- 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) 06:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The Sack of Bath
Created by Wingedserif (talk). Self-nominated at 22:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
: The article is concise, very enjoyable, very well written and well-referenced. It is an excellent and impassioned introduction to the book. I have run a copyvio check and found none. Manual checking is not possible for some the cited material, however, I trust that the nominating editor spared no effort in this regard. Citation Bot didn't find any citations requiring expansion. There aren't any duplicate links. Both hooks are cited and interesting; I would go with the first one. Only QPQ remains; when that's over with please ping me.
- Just a thought, maybe replace 'newspaper articles' in the first hook with 'book'? ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Elie plus: Just completed a QPQ for Gates of Tears: let me know what you think (and I'm glad you liked the article :D)! Wingedserif (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Wingedserif: Good luck ; this is at least an A-grade piece. Keep it up. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
: The article is concise, very enjoyable, very well written and well-referenced. It is an excellent and impassioned introduction to the book. I have run a copyvio check and found none. Manual checking is not possible for some the cited material, however, I trust that the nominating editor spared no effort in this regard. Citation Bot didn't find any citations requiring expansion. There aren't any duplicate links. Both hooks are cited and interesting; I would go with the first one. Only QPQ remains; when that's over with please ping me.