- 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 Mifter (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
... that the flea was one of the objects studied under the microscope and illustrated by Robert Hooke in 1665 in his pioneering book Micrographia?
- Reviewed: Bhaktha Sri Thyagaraja
- Comment: The image is its own reference. Links to Robert Hooke and Micrographia are in the image caption rather than in the hook.
Improved to Good Article status by Chiswick Chap (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 09:43, 4 December 2016 (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
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
It's good to see a vital article here – better than most FA. And it's a hook about Hooke! The hook could perhaps use a copy-edit to tighten it but that's not a show-stopper. I'll provide an ALT after the review to show what I mean. Note that we need (pictured) in the hook too. Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the flea (pictured) was illustrated by Robert Hooke in 1665 in his pioneering book Micrographia?
- Thanks for the review. ALT1 is better and I have struck ALT0. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I just went to promote this to prep, but discovered a bit of troublesome close paraphrasing that needs to be fixed: the short second paragraph in "Jumping" is virtually identical to the cited source. Cwmhiraeth, please let me know when this is adjusted, so I can check it and hopefully restore the tick. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: That sentence predated our involvement with the article. I have rephrased it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Restoring tick now that close paraphrasing has been addressed; the rest of the review is per Andrew D. It's too bad that the GA review didn't catch the close paraphrasing, since the check should be made at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It's good to see a vital article here – better than most FA. And it's a hook about Hooke! The hook could perhaps use a copy-edit to tighten it but that's not a show-stopper. I'll provide an ALT after the review to show what I mean. Note that we need (pictured) in the hook too. Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
