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 SL93 (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Overall: New enough, long enough, no other eligibility issues. Sourcing is good, and thank you for the direct link to the sources supporting the hook, which check out. Earwig check reveals nothing of concern. The hook is interesting. QPQ done and accurate. It's a great article, and I've made some reasonably minor clarification/copyediting amendments (Gwillhickers, please check those are OK!). From my perspective, good to go. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, no other eligibility issues. Sourcing is good, and thank you for the direct link to the sources supporting the hook, which check out. Earwig check reveals nothing of concern. The hook is interesting. QPQ done and accurate. It's a great article, and I've made some reasonably minor clarification/copyediting amendments (Gwillhickers, please check those are OK!). From my perspective, good to go. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)