The following is an archived discussion of Norman Cob's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page.See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Carabinieri (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC).
5x expanded by Dana boomer (talk). Self nom at 15:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
AGF on the offline sources. Spot check on the online ones shows no problems with accuracy or close paraphrasing, e.g. metaphors carried over from the French. Neutral, expansion is new enough (February 11), long enough, hook is sourced and not too long. A thorough, well-written article. Is there any reason for not including a CC3 picture from the article, see right? Good to go anyway. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Including a picture would be cool, if there's a lack of hooks with images. Here's another image possibility, too. It's a little "busier" than your pick, but the horse is better groomed :) I'm good with either one, though. Dana boomer (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The first picture is simpler. At 100px the red-coated man seems to me to be wearing a very large greenish-colored hat, although that may not be a problem at all, come to think of it. I also have no problem with either. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of Norman Cob's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
AGF on the offline sources. Spot check on the online ones shows no problems with accuracy or close paraphrasing, e.g. metaphors carried over from the French. Neutral, expansion is new enough (February 11), long enough, hook is sourced and not too long. A thorough, well-written article. Is there any reason for not including a CC3 picture from the article, see right? Good to go anyway. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
