- 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) 05:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Academese
- ... that academese has been criticized for being unnecessarily complex and in extreme cases, purposefully discriminating and obfuscating? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=uiL-CwAAQBAJ&q=Academese&pg=PA1 , https://books.google.com/books?id=G67SYKPNCQUC&q=Academese&pg=PA75, https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/457
Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 06:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
I'm surprised there wasn't an article on this subject until yesterday. This is pretty well-written, comprehensive, and neutrally written. Of course, people have a lot of opinions, but the article is presenting them as opinions, rather than fact. Mostly, the one issue I have is that I think that the article could stand to have a little copyediting (phrases like "Another comic that made fun of this topic is" don't strike me as encyclopedic). jp×g 22:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
How can the subject be featured in Calvin and Hobbes in 2013 if the comic was last published in 1995? Thriley (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's re-ran from 1993 theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
