Template:Did you know nominations/Ferenc Kossuth

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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Originality of text

Ferenc Kossuth

(

)

... that Ferenc Kossuth, son of Hungarian revolutionary Lajos Kossuth, was also a prominent politician and Minister of Trade in his country?

Reviewed: Will review another soon
Comment: ALT1: ... that Ferenc Kossuth, son of Hungarian revolutionary Lajos Kossuth, was also a prominent politician and Minister of Trade in his country?

Created/expanded by Norden1990 (talk) and Bob Burkhardt (talk). Nominated by Norden1990 at 12:00 21 June 2012 (CEST)

In the hook, "also" is confusing - I suggest it be deleted. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
New and long enough. Images good to go. There are references, inline citations would be an improvement although with the article and the references being quite short, this is not a big problem. I cannot verify that he was Minister of Trade. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Also doesn't sound confusing to me. I think this is legit if it is referenced. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is not eligible. DYK requires that content must be new, not text copied from other articles. In this case, of the 2715 prose characters, at least 2286 are copied from the two Encyclopedia Britannica sources, leaving only about 400 that may be original, well under the 1500 minimum. In addition, the hook information is not given an inline citation as required by the DYK rules, nor does each paragraph have at least one inline citation, another DYK requirement. I think the author might profit from reading WP:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, which discusses this kind of usage and how to cite it. In particular, it's important to differentiate what comes from which source, in this case the two Britannica articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)