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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Overall: My only issues with the article were minor ones, such as those related to punctuation (see MOS:CQ and MOS:DASH), and were easily fixed (and I agree—the em dash is cleaner). The article has been expanded fivefold within the past seven days, and Earwig's Copyvio Detector found negligible similarities between the article's prose and content from other websites. I think it's good to go. —Matthew - (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@MatthewHoobin: Thanks for the review. I really appreciate you taking the time to tweak those minor issues and improve the article in a way you weren't required to. Again, thanks, and have a good one! ~ Pbritti (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
My only issues with the article were minor ones, such as those related to punctuation (see MOS:CQ and MOS:DASH), and were easily fixed (and I agree—the em dash is cleaner). The article has been expanded fivefold within the past seven days, and Earwig's Copyvio Detector found negligible similarities between the article's prose and content from other websites. I think it's good to go. —Matthew - (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)