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 Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Overall: The Duke of Sussex article is new enough, long enough, sourced and no copyvio. It doesn't seem too promotional to me, and has decent sources throughout. Acton Green article was recently expanded 5x, also meets all requirements. Hook is cited to what looks like a reputable source by a local history society. Two qpqs have been done, so I think this makes a nice double nom. Approving ALT0 because it is the most interesting of the two. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The Duke of Sussex article is new enough, long enough, sourced and no copyvio. It doesn't seem too promotional to me, and has decent sources throughout. Acton Green article was recently expanded 5x, also meets all requirements. Hook is cited to what looks like a reputable source by a local history society. Two qpqs have been done, so I think this makes a nice double nom. Approving ALT0 because it is the most interesting of the two. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)