The following discussion 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: rejected by —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Apparently not
Fixed styling and added linking. Everything checks out in terms of history, length and refs. Older version existed, but it seems that some newbie stomping took place, so I'm leaning to passing this. Seems like a weak tag though. Maybe:
Article is quite a way from being long enough for DYK. Readable prose is currently 346 characters. I suppose it's also possible that an expansion would reveal a more interesting hook. Moswentotalky 15:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Closing by submitter - Passed "new" period and did not have enough prose to warrant DYK at this time. --
Nathan2055talk 19:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
You still have time to fix this if you are up to it.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)