Overall: This nomination still needs work. As it's your first nomination, I'm happy to give you time to improve this. But, at minimum, you need to settle on an interesting hook with a reliable source that you can clearly cite for it. Unsourced sections need to either be removed, or reliable sources cited inline with them. Grnrchst (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion: if you find a source for current use of the same routes, that might be interesting (enough)? FortunateSons (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Marking as rejected due to a lack of response from Owenglyndur. If they do not respond in the next few days, this can be closed as rejected. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Z1720, it appears that Owenglyndur responded to your original post on their talk page on 5 May rather than here, and made a number of edits to the article that same day. Do issues remain? Also pinging original reviewer Grnrchst. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd be ok with passing this review now, as the biggest issues with the article and hook have been sufficiently addressed. There's still some bits that lack inline citations, but some of them make clear what they're citing in the text and others are rather minor things in larger paragraphs that contain inline citations elsewhere. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Grnrchst and Owenglyndur: A hook cannot run at DYK with missing inline citations. This will need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Hook should be a Monty Python reference imo. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)