- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by The C of E (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mitten
- ... that the earliest known mitten was found in Dorestad and dates to the 8th or 9th century? Source: [1]
- Comment: My 5th nomination, so I believe this is the last one where I am exempt from QPQ. I will work on the article a bit more, but nominating now to meet the deadline.
Converted from a redirect by Fuzheado (talk) and Pharos (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 20:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC).
This article doesn't meet the DYK size requirement; it is only 1079 characters—well below the 1500-character minimum. Sorry! MeegsC (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @LordPeterII: You may want to rectify this quickly. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I totally missed that! Sorry. However, it seems like the DYK check did not account for the entire "types" section because it was a bulleted list. I have removed the bullet points (for now; I want to rewrite that a bit anyway), so afaik it now passes the limit. Not sure if this is considered cheating MeegsC and The C of E, but I feel like that is readable text. If you can allow the nomination to stay here a bit, I will work on the article further. If not, well then just remove the nomination. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave this here to stop it getting closed prematurely. I don't have time to check it at the moment, might be able to later. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. However, I now realize that the article is in a worse shape than I thought, with several sections badly sourced or outdated. The first hook might actually not be accurate as per this source [4], but I wasn't aware of this until just now. If you can bear with me, I will try to get the article in better shape. Feel free to start the review, but I believe it currently would not pass all quality criteria. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @The C of E: Thanks again for the help, but I'm afraid I'll withdraw the nomination now anyway. The article is now being heavily edited (thanks
ObamaSenator Sanders!), and I can not guarantee its integrity for DYK. Also, I have other projects and things to do irl, so... yeah I withdraw this. Maybe once it is a good article we can try again :) --LordPeterII (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @LordPeterII: If this article makes it to GA, please bring it back to DYK. --evrik (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)