- 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 Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Albert shako
Albert hat and shako
- ... that a hat designed by .
- ALT1:... that the . Cassell and Company. p. 216.
Albert shako
Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 07:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
Expanded from 4,015 bytes to 18,915 bytes (or 463 words to 1,791 words). This isn't quite 5x... but it's also a new article... but the initial revision was split off from another article -- I'm not sure what the protocol is, but this seems like splitting hairs, especially when it's already been expanded so much. I don't think it would benefit the article to demand you bang out 300 words of unnecessary additional content to meet an arbitrary wordcount cutoff so I'm going to IAR and say this is fine.
As for hooks, I personally like ALT3 the best (by a lot), followed by ALT2, followed by ALT1. I think the nominator should choose which one they want to use, but the original is extremely boring. jp×g 08:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi jp, thanks for the review. Just to clarify: I split this article from a draft sandbox in my user page. None of this content has been in the mainspace before so it should be fine for the DYK rules. I am happy for any of the ALTs to be run - Dumelow (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't know how the hell I missed that. I guess I don't even have to break a rule to say this looks fine, then! jp×g 08:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
Expanded from 4,015 bytes to 18,915 bytes (or 463 words to 1,791 words). This isn't quite 5x... but it's also a new article... but the initial revision was split off from another article -- I'm not sure what the protocol is, but this seems like splitting hairs, especially when it's already been expanded so much. I don't think it would benefit the article to demand you bang out 300 words of unnecessary additional content to meet an arbitrary wordcount cutoff so I'm going to IAR and say this is fine.