Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2288e667b35d319

Jump to content

Talk:Colonial Defence Committee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Theleekycauldron in topic Did you know nomination

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • ... that the Colonial Defence Committee advised British colonies not to permit more than two foreign warships into harbour at a time, in case of a surprise attack? Source: "In the light of this record the Committee sternly cautioned the colonial authorities against permitting more than two foreign warships into a colonial harbor at one time" from:Gordon, Donald C. (1962). "The Colonial Defence Committee and Imperial Collaboration: 1885-1904". Political Science Quarterly. 77 (4): 530. doi:10.2307/2146245. ISSN 0032-3195.

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 08:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC).Reply

  • – good to go. The article was moved to mainspace on the twenty-fourth; it's duly sourced and more than long enough. Earwig's tool finds no copyright concerns, and no other policy problems are apparent. The QPQ has been completed. I think the hook, which I've verified in the cited source, is certainly "hooky" enough, and it meets the brevity requirement. Thanks for writing this interesting article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
To T:DYK/P6