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) 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewer instructions Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count A Simple Word Counter Reviewers' template Find sources (notability) Hook length

Raid on Manila (1798)[edit]

• ... that when Royal Navy frigates led the successful Raid on Manila in January 1798, not a single man was killed?

• ALT1 ... that when Royal Navy Captain Edward Cooke raided Manila in January 1798, he toasted "the downfall of England"?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Niuean mythology, Fao (god)

Created by Jackyd101 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC).

• Comment Review under way. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• DYK checklist template

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - n/a
• Used in article: - n/a
• Clear at 100px: - n/a

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Passes DYK checklist.

• Review Good to go! Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK nomination was timely (moved from a user sand box to main space in a magnified form) and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. Hook references for main hook and Alt 1 are verified and cited. I prefer Alt 1 as I think it hookier. No copyright violations or too close paraphrasing. Earwig's copy violation detector report gives it a clean bill; the suspected "violation" does not look like a close paraphrase to me. All hooks relate directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited (except as noted above). QPQ confirmed. As to the offline sources, I WP:AGF and did not have access. Nicely done! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)