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 Allen3 ^talk 22:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• ... that Ultra Rare Trax was the first significant bootleg set of The Beatles to appear on compact disc?

• ALT1:... that Clinton Heylin thought some material on the Ultra Rare Trax bootleg series sounded better than the official Beatles' CD reissues from EMI?
• Reviewed: Marcellus Neal
• Comment: Was previously AfDed here - this is a complete rewrite

Created by Ritchie333 (talk). Self nominated at 17:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

• New enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online source. QPQ done. I prefer the first hook, but both hook refs are AGF and cited inline. I just have some questions on the text. Is there a typo in it was the first one to achieve widespread attention with bootleggers at the potential of digital remastering? (do you mean regarding the potential?) And why was EMI "unimpressed" with the release, when everyone else was so excited about it? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• The first issue is clumsy wording, which I've now (hopefully) fixed. As for EMI, they were unimpressed that somebody had copied recordings from right under their noses, that they had successfully kept locked in vaults for years and years, and was making money from it. I've copyedited that too. Hopefully both areas of concern now make more sense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, your changes make much more sense. As I said, I prefer the first hook, but both hooks are good to go. Yoninah (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)