Talk:Mill Creek, Washington

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Yoninah in topic External links modified (January 2018)
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mill Creek, Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

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 Yoninah (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Improved to Good Article status by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 02:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC).Reply

  •   Article was promoted to GA status on time, and the article meets other DYK requirements. No close paraphrasing was found, and both hooks are cited inline and verified. ALT0 is not a very obvious hook (i.e. it might take some time to get it) and ALT1 sounds more quirky so I think it might be a better idea to go with that; I've made a minor change to ALT1 in that I removed one comma since it didn't seem to be necessary. A QPQ has been done. Good to go. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply