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) 05:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A7FL

edit

Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 19:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC).

  • Article was created 30 July but I count only 1,325 characters of prose. Hook and article in general are cited to reliable sources and look to be free of close paraphrasing. The two QPQs required have been completed. A little expansion and I would say this is good to go (after second review) - Dumelow (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Dumelow - sorry for the delay. I think this is at the character mark now. LavaBaron (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron: Sorry, I should have pinged you when I reviewed. I have been away on holiday and forgot about this one. I added a little extra text myself and think it is now looking OK. Second review needed - Dumelow (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Date, length and hook all OK. QPQ done, no close para. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking at this @LavaBaron and The C of E: and the level of experience in both nominator and reviewer I am surprised that it gets the green tick without a direct source for the hook claim? Please address and then I will complete my review as the ANI mandated second requirement.  MPJ-DK  10:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: I have added a citation for the hook fact so perhaps you could complete your review. It seems a perfectly satisfactory article to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)