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 Bruxton (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
... that although the 1917 socialist Leeds Convention(location pictured) raised the concerns of George V, it had little practical effect? Source: "Even King George V was “greatly disturbed”, asking pro-war Labour MP Will Thorne, “Do you think that any ill will come from this Conference at Leeds and the decisions that were made there?” ... Yet despite little emerging practically out of it, the Leeds Convention of 1917 still deserves to be remembered" from: Høgsbjerg, Christian (31 May 2017). "A most remarkable gathering". Socialist Worker. Retrieved 24 November 2022.
ALT1: ... that the 1917 Leeds Convention(location pictured) in Britain passed resolutions calling for the end of the First World War and praising the February Revolution in Russia? Source: "In late May the four resolutions to be voted on at Leeds were published. The first three (hailing the Russian Revolution, calling for an end to the war and defending civil liberties) fitted with demands at previous gatherings, but the fourth resolution called for something new — the establishment “in every town, urban, and rural district” of “Councils of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Delegates” ... the resolutions were all passed almost unanimously." from: Høgsbjerg, Christian (31 May 2017). "A most remarkable gathering". Socialist Worker. Retrieved 24 November 2022.
Overall: A great article and a great nomination. Nice work, Dumelow! Note that two of the three sources are offline books that I am accepting in good faith. Note also that the high percentage chance of plagiarism given by Earwig's tool consists almost entirely of quotations, which I do not believe are excessive after reading the article. Michael Barera (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
A great article and a great nomination. Nice work, Dumelow! Note that two of the three sources are offline books that I am accepting in good faith. Note also that the high percentage chance of plagiarism given by Earwig's tool consists almost entirely of quotations, which I do not believe are excessive after reading the article. Michael Barera (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)