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 97198 (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Review Good to go! New article, timely nominated. Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK nomination was timely and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. No copyright violations or too close paraphrasing. Earwig's copy violation detector: Emile Rey report gives it a clean bill. Note that there are acknowledged parallels to an 1888 piece that is in the public domain. Hook is hooky enough, I think, and relates directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ done.
IMO, a really beautiful article on an interesting subject. I really like the hook and picture. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
Passes DYK checklist.
Good to go! New article, timely nominated. Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK nomination was timely and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. No copyright violations or too close paraphrasing. Earwig's copy violation detector: Emile Rey report gives it a clean bill. Note that there are acknowledged parallels to an 1888 piece that is in the public domain. Hook is hooky enough, I think, and relates directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ done.