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) 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Overall: Fine on creation - nomination time, and on length, sourcing OK (was potentially impacted by a one-line "paragraph" but that should have been within the preceding paragraph anyway), no cross-article copying found, Earwig found 0% except one catch-phrase, which is valid. Hook is certainly catchy, and its one core fact is cited adequately for its type. Pictures in article are OK, not used in nomination anyway. QPQ fine, technical issue noted and resolved. SeoR (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Fine on creation - nomination time, and on length, sourcing OK (was potentially impacted by a one-line "paragraph" but that should have been within the preceding paragraph anyway), no cross-article copying found, Earwig found 0% except one catch-phrase, which is valid. Hook is certainly catchy, and its one core fact is cited adequately for its type. Pictures in article are OK, not used in nomination anyway. QPQ fine, technical issue noted and resolved. SeoR (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)