The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment on ALT1 should the names of the lecturers be linked as it detracts from the article, any thoughts?--Ratio:Scripta·[ Talk ] 04:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment on ALT2 could possibly be saved for the DYKs of 17th or 18th Nov 2011 as it will date relevant. Changing deliver to delivered or as appropriate.--Ratio:Scripta·[ Talk ] 11:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hook: Original too long, boring. ALT1 okay, ALT2 nice. Both facts cited.
Article: History section has an unsourced sentence. Needs a copyedit. Reference style needs cleanup. New enough, long enough. No images, so no need to check for image copyvio. Paraphrasing seems fine.
Summary: Please clean up the references, including referencing the statement in the history section, and give this a copyedit (or request one at the Guild) Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The history section sentence had now been sourced. --Ratio:Scripta·[ Talk ] 12:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
History section sentence (The creation of the trust spawned the annual Longford Lecture and Logford Prize aswell as the Longford Scholarship.) still needs a reference, and a quick copyedit is needed). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The history sentence has had three sources added to hit as requested. --Ratio:Scripta·[ Talk ] 17:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
As an example of something that needs proofreading, the above quote has one mistake in it. I may look into more specific answers tomorrow. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Corrected mistake in above phrase "Logford" to "Longford"--Ratio:Scripta·[ Talk ] 17:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a note: the QPQ reviews are mandatory from the fifth and up, not second and up. (Unless the rules have changed) Mind you, the more reviews the better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)