- 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 Kingsif (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten
Improved to Good Article status by LightandDark2000 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC).
- Reviewed: 53W53. I think that I'm exempt from the QPQ rule, since this is my second DYK nominee, but I reviewed another candidate, anyway. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2021 (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 is new enough, long enough and neutral. However, it includes a reference to WP:DAILYSTAR, a deprecated source (I have no idea how the GA review didn't address that but that's besides the point). Earwig did not pick up anything major. Hook is interesting and cited in article. QPQ done even though it wasn't needed (thanks for helping us reduce the backlog) but you could probably use the it when you actually need it. In a nutshell, this article would be good to go if the Daily Star reference was removed. Ping me when you've done that! Pamzeis (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for replacing the Daily Star but now you've replaced it with a WP:DAILYEXPRESS source! Daily Express is considered generally unreliable so you'll have to remove/replace that too. BTW, please don't place you comments below the "Please do not write below this line or remove this line", since if you do, when it's promoted it will be outside of the blue box (if that makes sense). Happy editing! Pamzeis (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Pamzeis: While the article itself seemed to be reliable to me (doesn't mean that the site itself is generally reliable), I removed it anyway. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. This is good to go. Pamzeis (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Article is new enough, long enough and neutral. However, it includes a reference to WP:DAILYSTAR, a deprecated source (I have no idea how the GA review didn't address that but that's besides the point). Earwig did not pick up anything major. Hook is interesting and cited in article. QPQ done even though it wasn't needed (thanks for helping us reduce the backlog) but you could probably use the it when you actually need it. In a nutshell, this article would be good to go if the Daily Star reference was removed. Ping me when you've done that! Pamzeis (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Done. I replaced the Daily Star source with another one. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
