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 Lightbursttalk 01:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Overall: There are parts of the article that should be tightened up a bit (i.e. categories need adding, birth date should be provided if known, etc.) But there's nothing about it that strikes me as worth rejecting. Grnrchst (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Launchballer: It is a distracting citation style some sentences have a citation every 3 words. I do not think it is a DYK disqualifier but it is WP:CITEFOOTIf a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentenceLightburst (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
There are parts of the article that should be tightened up a bit (i.e. categories need adding, birth date should be provided if known, etc.) But there's nothing about it that strikes me as worth rejecting. Grnrchst (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)