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) 03:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Overall: @Wasted Time R: Good article. But, this does seem to have been nominated 8-9 days after its creation so I wonder if it's still new enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
@Onegreatjoke: Thanks for doing the review. Yes, I goofed and missed the nomination cut-off by one day. Whether to let such misses slide by is generally up to individual reviewers; I have approved cases like this a couple of times in the past. Looking now in WP:DYKSG, I see that rule D9 speaks to this, saying The "seven days old" limit can be extended for a day or two upon request (the second part of D9 doesn't apply here, because I am not new to DYK). But it's really up to you. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I guess it's not too big of a deal. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)