Template:Did you know nominations/Aimwell
- The following discussion 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Aimwell
[edit]- ... that unlike all modern thoroughbreds, the 1785 Derby winner Aimwell was not descended in the male line from either the Darley Arabian, the Godolphin Arabian or the Byerley Turk?
Created/expanded by Tigerboy1966 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 19:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the second one late I've seen from this nominator. :P Nominated ten days after expansion. That said, meh! I'm reviewing so there you go. Stop it in the future and be more timely in nominating! :P :D
Article hook is properly formatted. Article was written on February 8 and appears on that date. Based on that and that there were at least 11 unreviewed DYKs above it, it is suitably new. Length of article checks out. Picture in article is public domain so no issues. Article reads as neutral enough to me.
There were two sentences uncited. I just removed them and the article is still at length. Article thus is properly supported by inline citations.- I've read and reread the supporting reference for the hook about four times. I am almost certain it supports the text in the article and the hook... but my knowledge of horses lineages is non-existent so I'm going to assume I am interpreting the source as supporting the text with "One of the most influential imported eastern stallions, he was probably of equal importance to the establishment of the stud book as were the Byerley Turk, the Darley Arabian, and the Godolphin Arabian."
- Forgot to verify plagiarism looked for. :( here, here, here, here. No causes for concern.
Good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)