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 RoySmithtalk 21:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Overall: Great work! For ease of other reviewers; the hook comes from page 178 of the source (and doing the calculation to come up with the margin of victory from the vote totals clearly falls under the WP:CALC exception to NOR). From revision 1285445119, I spotchecked refs 1 (in both uses of the citation) and 3; both supported the statement made and were not copyvios. Earwig comes up spotless. While not a problem, note that the source used for the hook in the article (ref 5) is different from the source used in this DYK. Ref 5 is not available gratis on the net, so I AGF that it supports the statement. Approved ALT0, and thank you for your work countering systemic bias on WP :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Great work! For ease of other reviewers; the hook comes from page 178 of the source (and doing the calculation to come up with the margin of victory from the vote totals clearly falls under the WP:CALC exception to NOR). From revision 1285445119, I spotchecked refs 1 (in both uses of the citation) and 3; both supported the statement made and were not copyvios. Earwig comes up spotless. While not a problem, note that the source used for the hook in the article (ref 5) is different from the source used in this DYK. Ref 5 is not available gratis on the net, so I AGF that it supports the statement.