- 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 Bruxton (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Paper fortune teller
A decorated paper fortune teller
Improved to Good Article status by David Eppstein (talk). Self-nominated at 04:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Paper fortune teller; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| 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: 
GA review was finished yesterday. Prose size is 4175 byte. All claims in the article have sources. They all seem to be reliable. ALT0 and ALT1 are supported by the sources. I don't have access to the sources of ALT2. WP:EARWIG shows 2 potential copyright violations. But they date back from after 2016 and the text in question is already found in the article in 2016, see [1]. I don't find ALT1 particularly interesting so I suggest we go with ALT0. If you prefer ALT2 then we would have to see what to do about the sources. A short google search seems to confirm the terms listed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: @Phlsph7 and David Eppstein: Interesting nomination and free image. No open image slots right now. On an Earwig check we have a 55.4% and I see the explanation. Bruxton (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
GA review was finished yesterday. Prose size is 4175 byte. All claims in the article have sources. They all seem to be reliable. ALT0 and ALT1 are supported by the sources. I don't have access to the sources of ALT2. WP:EARWIG shows 2 potential copyright violations. But they date back from after 2016 and the text in question is already found in the article in 2016, see [1]. I don't find ALT1 particularly interesting so I suggest we go with ALT0. If you prefer ALT2 then we would have to see what to do about the sources. A short google search seems to confirm the terms listed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)