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 subject matter is interesting and would be happy to support nomination - All the best from TextualismTextualism (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@Textualism: I think you need to look at WP:DYK rules. DYK nominations have to be new otherwise they are not allowed. GA's are an exception if they too are a new GA. Please have another look. DYK requires 1500 characters. "Requires Expansion" is expected. Victuallers (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@Victuallers: Apologies, my review of WP:DYKR led me down the wrong path, so to speak. I actually like this article and am looking forward to the upcoming Olympics and Paralympics. Would you mind if I edited my first comment on this page to a 'tick'? Textualism (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure if you are happy - there is a quick reviewing guide which summarises the main tripwires for DYK nominations and its good to check these out too. Do feel free to tweak the article if you see an error or can see how to improve it. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I've edited my original comment. Of course, this conversation fragment has now lost a little context! Cheers Textualism (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Based on the original review and the revised one, it does not appear that this nomination has been reviewed against the DYK criteria: newness, length, sourcing, neutrality, close paraphrasing, hook, etc. Reviewer needed to do a complete review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Overall: Article was new enough at time of nomination, and is currently well sourced and long enough. The hook is cited and interesting. qpq has been provided and Earwig is not picking up any copyvio, so this is nom is a go! BuySomeApples (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The subject matter is interesting and would be happy to support nomination - All the best from Textualism Textualism (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Based on the original review and the revised one, it does not appear that this nomination has been reviewed against the DYK criteria: newness, length, sourcing, neutrality, close paraphrasing, hook, etc. Reviewer needed to do a complete review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Article was new enough at time of nomination, and is currently well sourced and long enough. The hook is cited and interesting. qpq has been provided and Earwig is not picking up any copyvio, so this is nom is a go! BuySomeApples (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)