- 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) 05:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Babe Smith
edit
Created by Soaper1234 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:15, 10 April 2017 (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: 
Article was newly moved to mainspace when nominated, and is easily long enough, with thorough citations to published sources. Both hooks are sourced, but (in my opinion) the first is more substantial and interesting than ALT1; that's the one I would go with. The reviewing guide says that plot summaries are "possibly excluded" from the requirement for inline sources; if the massive plot summary in this article doesn't need citations, then the article is good to go for DYK. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would more than happy to use the original hook and thank you Bryanrutherford0 for your review. A general reference for plot summaries is in the reference section if that helps. Soaper1234 - talk 23:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Article was newly moved to mainspace when nominated, and is easily long enough, with thorough citations to published sources. Both hooks are sourced, but (in my opinion) the first is more substantial and interesting than ALT1; that's the one I would go with. The reviewing guide says that plot summaries are "possibly excluded" from the requirement for inline sources; if the massive plot summary in this article doesn't need citations, then the article is good to go for DYK. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)