Template:Did you know nominations/Hicksbeachia

Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination 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 knowDYK comment symbol (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

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)
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)