- 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 97198 (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Yola Letellier
- Reviewed: Nora Houston (Mary Mark Ockerbloom, as nominator, donating QPQ for Smallbones)
Created by Smallbones (talk). Nominated by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) at 20:53, 25 August 2019 (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
|
|
|
Overall: 
The article is fine except for a minor language point. "Fancy prostitute" could mean anything or nothing, although you have linked "courtesan" to a full explanation. I suggest that you delete "fancy prostitute," or replace it with something which matches the Courtesan link - perhaps "high-class mistress"? (I should add that the single source you have given on this template for the hook does not support the word "widely" on its own, although "widely" is fully cited in the article if you add together several sources. Therefore the hook is properly cited in the article.) Storye book (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks to all. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The article is fine 
@Storye book: Textual concern addressed, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)