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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ethics

Sources:

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ethics; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

We are in WP:QPQ backlog mode. Double reviews are required.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I was already wondering why some nominators provided 2 reviews. By my count, I'm at 15 completed nominations plus 3 open ones, which is still below the double-review-threshold. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The QPQ check tool to the right counts only 19. I don't really trust the QPQ tool that much because it barely counts 40% of my own nominations. But If you feel that you have done less than 20 noms this can go forward. This case is on the honor system.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Checked Phlsph7's count, and also got 15 completed noms. Restoring Pbritti's tick, as a second QPQ review is not required. Sorry that a more thorough check wasn't done before this nomination was interrupted. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Miller 2023, pp. 14–15
  2. ^
  3. ^