- The following discussion 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Smallman12q (talk). Self nom at 17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- After the section on bar graphs, the article is completely lacking inline sourcing. Each of these sections could probably use some prose expansion and explanation as well, they are pretty bare. Finally, the orphan box at the top should be cleared before the nomination proceeds - there must be references to misleading graphs in broader articles on graphs and statistics. Tomsimlee (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to have another look. I think the author took care of a lot of this, if not all of it. They just didn't say so here. Maile66 (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Article big and new enough, all parts referenced. No Plagiarism found. Hook is present, cited, and I can believe it is in the book as stated, although I cannot confirm it. Good to do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)