- 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 SL93 talk 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Anna Smith Spark
ResonantDistortion 16:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC).
- Comment Upon second review I consider ALT0a to read a little better. It remains consistent with the sourcing, though I welcome further feedback. ResonantDistortion 21:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
Overall:
Thank you for this interesting article. Just one minor issue:
Neutrality can be a delicate thing. The "nasty, brutish and not short enough" review balances the other reviews, so the body of the article is neutral in that respect. But the header only says "critically well-received", which is not neutral, and sounds like an advertisement. So please neutralise the header?
- I have given the article a minor copyedit, and added a missing reference. That does not affect this DYK nomination.
When the neutrality issue is resolved, this nomination should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review Storye book. Fair point - as ever I have aimed for neutrality, however this was not wholly reflected in the lead. I have edited the section to try and resolve this. Furthermore your copyedit improvement is most appreciated. ResonantDistortion 22:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)