The following is an archived discussion of Hicksbeachia's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC).
Hicksbeachia, Carnarvonia, Cardwellia[edit]
(
Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)
Created by Casliber (talk), Macropneuma (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 20:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC).
. All three articles verified in respect of length, date and hook referencing. No copy vio noted. All three good to go.--Nvvchar. 02:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just sticking this in here to delay passing. Let us know when all articles are done! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Last one will be very tricky. Give me 24 hrs.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Buckinghamia 5x expanded now, and have reviewed 5 articles too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Remaining two articles need to be reviewed. As far as I can tell, that means the Hollandaea and Buckinghamia articles; Nvvchar's review seems to cover the other three. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Symbol_voting_keep.svg/16px-Symbol_voting_keep.svg.png)
Hollandaea and Buckinghamia are both long enough and new enough. One is new and the other an expansion. The hook ref for these 2 are online but that may not be true of the other 3 which is why I have given an "offline" tick.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)