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
Yoninah (
talk) 22:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Almost everything seems good to go. Article is long enough, was created recently (moved into article space from drafting space), and is well-sourced. The hook is sourced and the correct length. Nominator is new and no QPQ required. The only possible issue is that the hook could be more interesting. Maybe this is a borderline case where the present hook would be enough. But I suspect the nominator too would like an interesting hook (they were discussing it on their talk page). This is their issue to resolve, but it occurs to me that perhaps they could do something that takes advantage of the similarities of the words "activist" and "archivist" (after all, DYK hook reviewing guidelines suggest unusual nicknames as an interesting hook, so why not other forms of wordplay?). [note: If active DYK editors or admins think the hook is sufficiently interesting, then I'd call it good to go now] --
Presearch (
talk) 23:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Checking the references, I think that with a bit judicious expansion of the content by
Clovermoss, the following alternate hook (below) might well meet
Presearch's suggestion for a more interesting hook.
Nick Moyes (
talk) 23:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm giving this a good to go, with ALT1. Everything else looks fine.
Felixkrater (
talk) 17:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Please address the "which" tag in the article.
Yoninah (
talk) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@
Clovermoss: thank you for editing the section (next time let us know here on the template). Restoring tick per Felixkrater's review.
Yoninah (
talk) 22:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)