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: rejected by
BorgQueen (
talk) 14:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi
Red-tailed hawk (
talk), article started 12 March and exceeds minimum length; cited inline throughout to what look to be reliable sources; I didn't notice any overly close paraphrasing in a spotcheck on sources, Earwig looks to be down for me at the moment but happy to AGF on this article by a trusted user (and
WP:COPYCLERK!); hook fact is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to Reuters article cited; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to me, a fine article on a current event -
Dumelow (
talk) 11:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the article. My concern here is the stability of the article, but I do not see any edit wars.
Bruxton (
talk) 14:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)