Talk:Colonial Defence Committee
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Theleekycauldron in topic Did you know nomination
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
 | This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |  |
 | A fact from Colonial Defence Committee appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 February 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 22, 2023 and April 22, 2024. |
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the Colonial Defence Committee advised British colonies not to permit more than two foreign warships into harbour at a time, in case of a surprise attack? Source: "In the light of this record the Committee sternly cautioned the colonial authorities against permitting more than two foreign warships into a colonial harbor at one time" from:Gordon, Donald C. (1962). "The Colonial Defence Committee and Imperial Collaboration: 1885-1904". Political Science Quarterly. 77 (4): 530. doi:10.2307/2146245. ISSN 0032-3195.
Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 08:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC).
– good to go. The article was moved to mainspace on the twenty-fourth; it's duly sourced and more than long enough. Earwig's tool finds no copyright concerns, and no other policy problems are apparent. The QPQ has been completed. I think the hook, which I've verified in the cited source, is certainly "hooky" enough, and it meets the brevity requirement. Thanks for writing this interesting article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
