- 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 Bruxton (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Witch-hunts in India
Improved to Good Article status by Schnitzella (talk). Nominated by BorgQueen (talk) at 18:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Witch-hunts in India; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| 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
|
|
|
Image eligibility:
Overall: 
@BorgQueen: I see that the article was recognized as a GA on 21 April 2023 (see: Talk:Witch-hunts in India/GA1) and is well-sourced, written in a WP:NPOV. The same source as provided in this nomination is also used in the article. The hook is interesting and correct. Nominator BorgQueen also recently contributed to the improvement of the article before it received a GA status. Consequently, I see no flaws why this nomination could be rejected and I can only thank to BorgQueen, @Schnitzella: and other related contributors for creating quality content. -- Pofka (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- @BorgQueen: I wonder if "nowadays" is too colloquial. Maybe today? Bruxton (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think "twenty-first century" I will add it to the hook and if you object we can change it. Bruxton (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- no image in this nomination
@BorgQueen: I see that the article was recognized as a GA on 21 April 2023 (see: Talk:Witch-hunts in India/GA1) and is well-sourced, written in a WP:NPOV. The same source as provided in this nomination is also used in the article. The hook is interesting and correct. Nominator BorgQueen also recently contributed to the improvement of the article before it received a GA status. Consequently, I see no flaws why this nomination could be rejected and I can only thank to BorgQueen, @Schnitzella: and other related contributors for creating quality content. -- Pofka (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)