Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society

[edit]

Created/expanded by Astronomyinertia (talk). Self nom at 10:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  • This is an interesting article with reliable sources. Age, length OK. Hook ref verified. I tweaked the hook to make it tighter. There are, however, a few statements that need citations. Also, please see the hidden note in the Operation section noting that different figures are provided in different articles. Is this your first DYK nomination? It's a good one. Best, Yoninah (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking care of the refs. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks a bunch for the work you have done! Yes, this is my first DYK nomination, and it is pleasing to see the article has been reviewed positively:) I worked on several issues you have mentioned, which were worthwhile pointing out. Thanks again... Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article might be too close to that used by sources. For example, "to avoid damaging the thin layer of cells on the back that pump water away to keep it clear" in the article is verbatim from this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I have edited the article to address your concern. See whether anything else needs to be done. Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know why noone has commented on this for two weeks, but I think the phrasing issue has been adequately addressed. I think it's an interesting, well-cited article with a good hook - Good to go! Moswento (talk | contribs) 13:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)