Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Bruxton talk 18:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Sohom Datta (talk). Self-nominated at 14:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/History sniffing; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

I mistakenly nominated this under the Creation rule, however, this should have been nominated on the expanded 5x rule. Sohom (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded within the window, long enough and generally a reasonable-looking article, with plenty of citations and no obvious issues with NPOV or copyvio. I think ALT1 is the better hook: however, I can't see any mention of Papa John's in the linked article. Are they perhaps mentioned in a different source? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@undercoverClassicist I've swapped the source for the actual complaint document from FTC which does mention Papa John's. :) Sohom (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approved on that basis. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:History sniffing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to review this in the coming days. Ping as requested: @Sohom Datta: PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Background

History

This is a bit difficult to explain, I've qualified the statement slightly, hope that helps.

Threat model

Modern variants

Removed "over" since the source does not appear to mention the word "over".
I've tried explaining it briefly in the context of the article, it sucks that we don't have a article about it :(

@Sohom Datta: Overall a nicely written article. That's what I've got on my first read through. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS:, made the fixes and left some inline comments. Wrt to the access for the papers, I've put links to publicly accessible versions of some of the papers in the sources section below. Reference 18 is the only one that does not have a publicly accessible version, but I can send you a pdf/email you a copy if you need it to verify any details from it. Sohom (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS Friendly ping in case this fell of your radar. Sohom (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta Thank you for the ping, somehow I either forgot about or didn't see the first one. Changes look good (I made one small wording change) so I'm happy to give this a thumbs-up! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.