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 Yoninah (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

TASBot

Created by Samwalton9 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC).

  • Hello, I'll start this review in a moment. For future reference, this should have been transcluded to the September 18 section, as that's when it was created. I'll move it there, so don't worry about that. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC) My greatest apologies, I see the move. I'll move it back shortly! – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • New: Created on September 18, so within a week. checkY
  • Long enough: 3,158 characters of readable prose size, so good. checkY
  • Policy: checkY
  • Nothing strikes me as non-neutral. checkY
  • Inline citations look good. checkY
  • Copyio is at 2.0% per Earwig's tool. checkY
  • Hook:
  • Short enough, at 85 characters. checkY
  • More interesting than many DYK hooks I've seen lately. checkY
  • Is directly cited inline. checkY
  • Ars Technica is generally considered a reliable source, and directly states the fact, which thus makes the hook accurate. checkY
  • Is neutral. checkY
  • QPQ looks good. checkY
  • No image provided. checkY
Overall, this looks good. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)