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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

OSSI-1 edit

Created by Secretlondon (talk). Self nominated at 23:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC).

  • DYK rules require that a fact be cited directly (at the end of the sentence, not paragraph). This is also good practice in general as otherwise it is difficult for people to know which refs support which facts. Please adjust the article's citation style accordingly. Also, the last paragraph really leaves the reader hanging. It lists two problems that had to be overcome, but gives no indication of what was done to resolve them.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've added in the extra refs. We don't know how the issues in the last para were resolved as they haven't told the media. One document has a vague reference to "politics". They seem to have used a turnkey broker to launch the thing - I'm guessing they handled most of that. Secretlondon (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Length, newness, and general compliance with Wikipedia guidelines has been verified. All 3 hooks have been verified by provided inline citations. ALT1 is my first choice, as I think it is the most interesting way to put the info. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)