The result was: promoted by
Rjjiii
talk 06:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 08:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
No need for a QPQ considering the amt of noms. Okay hook, but I concur with Launchballer above about truncating it. I found some issues with
WP:CLOP and source-text integrity from a spotcheck of ~10% of the sources, but they aren't so egregious.
A solid GAN review tells me that great care was put into this article, but to be safe, I spotchecked ten sources (refer to this version for the ref numbers).
13, good; 25 doesn't say the studies occured in Germany and Israel; 38, no issues; 50, no mention of developed nations or wet bed combustion but will AGF the offline source cited beside it does---please confirm as well. 60 (not open access on my end? no issues otherwise though); 71, no issues; 85, no issues; 97, no issues; 108, no issues; 120 has close paraphrasing issues so please fix this.
A quick glance at the reflist suggests there are no blatantly unreliable RS, and the article was DYK-nommed at the right window of time. The prose is ok for a GA. Ran
Earwig for copyvio issues but no extreme red flags. @
InformationToKnowledge, please ping me once everything has been addressed.
PSA 🏕️ (
talk) 11:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) 12:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
References