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 The C of E (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how this meets the 5x expansion rule. It's 4651 bytes of prose now and a week ago it was 1314 bytes, which is 3.5x. — The Earwig (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, The Earwig - thanks for the catch. I glanced at this edit [2] from July 3 and didn't realize a new user had just blanked the page prior to that. Thanks for your diligent review. With that note, I withdraw the DYK.The Earwig - it appears editors have expanded the article again since my last comment. I think it passes the length requirement now. Chetsford (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC); edited 15:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the difference between June 27 and July 4, it does appear to have been expanded 5x but needs further review. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi BuySomeApples. Do you have any other concerns with the article or the hook? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I wasn't actually reviewing this, I just wanted to make a note that this was in need of a full review. I'll try to take some time out to do one myself, but I probably won't be able to until at least tomorrow. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Overall: The article is new enough, long enough and has a lot of reliable sources. It seems like it just scraped by with over 5x expansion within the week. Page looks pretty neutral to me and it doesn't look like there's a lot of edit-warring. Hook is cited and interesting. No significant copyvio popped up on Earwig either besides what looks like quotes. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the difference between June 27 and July 4, it does appear to have been expanded 5x but needs further review. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The article is new enough, long enough and has a lot of reliable sources. It seems like it just scraped by with over 5x expansion within the week. Page looks pretty neutral to me and it doesn't look like there's a lot of edit-warring. Hook is cited and interesting. No significant copyvio popped up on Earwig either besides what looks like quotes. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)