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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Overall: First hook grabs me from the start. Definitely interesting and everything looks fine. This is the first time I have personally done a QPQ so I'm questioning notability since this is a guy who is only known for being sticky - may need some additional insight before I feel good to pass this off! --Horsegeek(talk) 02:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Horsegeek: Thanks for the review. If you cannot pass this nomination perhaps you can place the red tick so someone else can review it. Bruxton (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Everything looks good and this nomination is ready for another reviewer! Horsegeek(talk) 20:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
My view is that WP:BASIC is met and I don't think it falls under any of the exclusionary criteria (it's a little weird, but so are a few people in the Guinness World Records category). I have re-checked that the criteria are met, including doing a Earwig copyvio check, and have no concerns; the article is new enough, long enough, well-written and all points are cited (I've made some minor tweaks in this respect, hopefully that's all OK). Hooks interesting and cited. Good to go. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
First hook grabs me from the start. Definitely interesting and everything looks fine. This is the first time I have personally done a QPQ so I'm questioning notability since this is a guy who is only known for being sticky - may need some additional insight before I feel good to pass this off! --Horsegeek(talk) 02:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
My view is that WP:BASIC is met and I don't think it falls under any of the exclusionary criteria (it's a little weird, but so are a few people in the Guinness World Records category). I have re-checked that the criteria are met, including doing a Earwig copyvio check, and have no concerns; the article is new enough, long enough, well-written and all points are cited (I've made some minor tweaks in this respect, hopefully that's all OK). Hooks interesting and cited. Good to go. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)