Template:Did you know nominations/Government Employee Fair Treatment Act
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Government Employee Fair Treatment Act
[edit].jpg)
A demonstration for pay during the 2018–19 government shutdown
... that the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act ensures retroactive pay for United States federal employees affected not just by the 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown, but all future federal government shutdowns?
Created by Dominic (talk). Self-nominated at 01:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC).
- Drive-by comment: The hook is quite repetitive with "United States" and "federal government shutdown" repeated twice. Not everything needs to be linked, either. Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
At 228 characters, the hook is too long for DYK, which has an absolute maximum of 200, and has been struck. Please provide a new, shorter hook, keeping in mind Yoninah's advice to avoid repetition and excessive linking. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Yoninah and BlueMoonset: Dominic hasn't edited since March 1st and in any case never responded to the comments made here. I've left him a talk page notice, but if he doesn't reply in the next few days, this may have to be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Marking for closure now. There were three posts to Dominic's talk page on this nomination: February 3, February 16, and March 9, all in the same section, the last saying we needed to hear back in a few days. Yours makes the fourth, a week after "a few days". We might want to give this another week before actual closure, but I think we've bent over backward trying to get a response. I do hope we hear back, but I'm not optimistic. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: The hook is the only issue right now right? If that's the case, all that could be done could be to try to shorten the current hook. I'm willing to do it myself, but I'm not sure how. If there are other issues however, then I agree that closure is the only option. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, we have no idea what issues there might or might not be because there has been no review beyond issues raised with the hook. A quick run of DYKcheck shows that the article was new enough and more than long enough when created, but none of the other necessary checks have been done. If there are any issues beyond the hook, it seems unlikely that they will be addressed unless someone—you?—is willing to review the article, propose a valid hook, and make any necessary fixes, in which case another reviewer could be pinged to do the final checks. At this point, it looks like it's up to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: As a general rule, I personally try as much as possible not to involve myself in actually personally fixing article issues, leaving such things to the nominator or other contributors (personally I don't want to try to get too involved in articles, especially in topics that are outside my usual editing subjects). With that said, after giving this some thought and checking the article, it was so close to actually passing. There weren't many problems with the article itself, and while Earwigs has a high score with this page, said page was published after the most recent edit to the article, so it's possible that the site copied from Wikipedia or elsewhere instead of vice-versa. The issue is that one sentence, incidentally the sentence that gives the hook fact, lacks a footnote. Specifically, the sentence that goes
This meant, unlike in previous shutdowns, the bill became active law prior to, and separate from, any agreement ending the shutdown itself
. If a source could be found for that, this can continue, but otherwise closure may be the only option. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: As a general rule, I personally try as much as possible not to involve myself in actually personally fixing article issues, leaving such things to the nominator or other contributors (personally I don't want to try to get too involved in articles, especially in topics that are outside my usual editing subjects). With that said, after giving this some thought and checking the article, it was so close to actually passing. There weren't many problems with the article itself, and while Earwigs has a high score with this page, said page was published after the most recent edit to the article, so it's possible that the site copied from Wikipedia or elsewhere instead of vice-versa. The issue is that one sentence, incidentally the sentence that gives the hook fact, lacks a footnote. Specifically, the sentence that goes
- Narutolovehinata5, we have no idea what issues there might or might not be because there has been no review beyond issues raised with the hook. A quick run of DYKcheck shows that the article was new enough and more than long enough when created, but none of the other necessary checks have been done. If there are any issues beyond the hook, it seems unlikely that they will be addressed unless someone—you?—is willing to review the article, propose a valid hook, and make any necessary fixes, in which case another reviewer could be pinged to do the final checks. At this point, it looks like it's up to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Considering the circumstances and the fact that no one has decided to adopt this nomination, I regret to say that it might be time to close this as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
A quick trimming of the hook. ALT1: ... that the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act ensures retroactive pay for US federal employees affected by government shutdowns?feminist (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- ALT1 is a much better hook. The last sentence in the "Legislative history" section needs a citation. Flibirigit (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sentence removed. While probably true, it's not something a source has explicitly mentioned, and can arguably fall under WP:SYNTH. feminist (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will do a full review after lunch today. Flibirigit (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sentence removed. While probably true, it's not something a source has explicitly mentioned, and can arguably fall under WP:SYNTH. feminist (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- ALT1 is a much better hook. The last sentence in the "Legislative history" section needs a citation. Flibirigit (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- pending photo suggestion - Interesting: - pending photo suggestion
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Article nominated one day after its creation, therefore new enough. Length and sourcing are adequate. Article seems neutral enough in tone. QPQ is not required as the nominator does not appear to have any DYK credits. The photo in the article is eligible to be included in this hook, but it could be cropped a bit. I will wait and see if there is a suggested hook with the photo before approving. There is a striking similarity to this source, which could be plagiarism. I am asking for clarification as to how much paraphrasing is allowed from a potential government or public domain source. Flibirigit (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, are you able to comment on the paraphrasing concerns? Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Close paraphrasing or copying of PD sources like US federal government works is allowed so long as it is attributed properly and there is still enough original prose to qualify for DYK (I haven't checked whether that is the case here). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, there is definitely enough original material if we excluded the introduction on the provision section which are from the public domain source. I have no other paraphrasing concerns now. I will wait to see if there is a suggested tweak to ALT1 with a photo. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit and Nikkimaria: I have to note that said government source appears to have been published after this article was created, so it's possible that either the similarities are just a coincidence, or said government source copied from elsewhere (either from another official page or perhaps from this article itself). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Noted, however since government content is in the public domain, I don't see an issue. Flibirigit (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit and Nikkimaria: I have to note that said government source appears to have been published after this article was created, so it's possible that either the similarities are just a coincidence, or said government source copied from elsewhere (either from another official page or perhaps from this article itself). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, there is definitely enough original material if we excluded the introduction on the provision section which are from the public domain source. I have no other paraphrasing concerns now. I will wait to see if there is a suggested tweak to ALT1 with a photo. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Close paraphrasing or copying of PD sources like US federal government works is allowed so long as it is attributed properly and there is still enough original prose to qualify for DYK (I haven't checked whether that is the case here). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- ALT1a: ... that the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act ensures retroactive pay for US federal employees (pictured) affected by government shutdowns?
- And the caption can be "A demonstration for pay during the 2018–19 government shutdown". feminist (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Approving ALT1a with the photo. Hook is properly cited inline, and interesting to a broad audience. The possible paraphrasing issues are not a concern since the content is in the public domain and properly attributed. Thank you to Feminist for adopting this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
