Template:Did you know nominations/Korea Music Copyright Association

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) 05:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Korea Music Copyright Association

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Korea Music Copyright Association's deal with JASRAC was called a "milestone in Japan-Korean musical relations" because Japanese music had been previously banned in South Korea?

• ALT1:... that the Korea Music Copyright Association had a monopoly on the copyright management of music in South Korea for fifty years?
• Reviewed: Neerja

Created by Random86 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC).

• Some issues found.
  • ✓ This article is new and was created on 22:53, 07 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 4249 characters
  • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
  • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
  • ✗ There is possible close paraphrasing on this article with 21.9% confidence. (confirm)
    • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
• No overall issues detected
  • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 181 characters
  • ✓ The hook ALT1 is an appropriate length at 123 characters
  • ✓ Random86 has 28 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Neerja was performed for this nomination.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 02:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the bot's findings above and confirm the article is suitable, as follows:

The article is new, as it was created on July 7th. The article is easily long enough. The article is sufficiently sourced and with no maintenance tags. Inline citations to English and Korean sources are used. I have to assume good faith on the Korean sources, but the English ones check out ok. There does not appear to be any paraphrasing or copyright issues. The bot's finding about paraphrasing relates to a direct quote in the article. Both hooks are acceptable and cited to English sources. QPQ has been done, so I think this is ready. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)