- 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 Maile66 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Julie Croteau
Improved to Good Article status by Therapyisgood (talk). Self-nominated at 22:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
Interesting article and interesting hook. Article meets all the criteria, as does the hook, and I see no reason not to approve. JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@JJonahJackalope: I've reworded the hook a bit and added an explanatory note to the article. The hook needs a re-review. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good, explanatory note works and I see no reason not to approve this new hook. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Therapyisgood and JJonahJackalope: mind if I yoink this for March 8 (International Women's Day)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have no issue with that if the dyk nominator doesn't. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- No issue. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note:Actually promoted to Prep by SL93
Interesting article and interesting hook. Article meets all the criteria, as does the hook, and I see no reason not to approve. JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)