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 Bruxton (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
... that despite being in force for more than 100 years no known prosecutions were made under the Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Act 1906? Source: "As with section 1, the Home Office have confirmed that there is no record of any prosecutions being brought under section 2" from: The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (January 2008). "Statute Law Repeals: Eighteenth Report"(PDF). p. 40. Retrieved 24 December 2022.
ALT1: ... that the Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Act 1906 has often been cited in lists of "strange UK laws"? Source: I've given four examples in the article but if you search the name of the act in Google News you'll get dozens of hits on similar lists
Overall: Article is new and long enough, and no copyvio concerns. Hook fact is present and cited, and while both are interesting I much prefer ALT0. QPQ is done and I don't have any concerns, good to go. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Article is new and long enough, and no copyvio concerns. Hook fact is present and cited, and while both are interesting I much prefer ALT0. QPQ is done and I don't have any concerns, good to go. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)