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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Overall: Article is just about long enough - a few prose issues in here but those should be easily fixed. The hook here could be cited better but I think it should be covered by secondary sources already. (You also need to review someone else's nomination before this one can be passed.) — fox 18:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fox: Hi, thanks for the review. See if your concerns are addressed. --Mhhosseintalk 12:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice! Looks good to me now. — fox 16:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
Article is just about long enough - a few prose issues in here but those should be easily fixed. The hook here could be cited better but I think it should be covered by secondary sources already. (You also need to review someone else's nomination before this one can be passed.) — fox 18:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)