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 4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Created by Nvvchar (talk). Self-nominated at 13:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC).
Article is new and long enough at 5,393 chars. It is overall inline cited, but the third paragraph of the "History" section lacks referencing. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports suspected copyvio at 96.8% with the source from Mining industry of Cyprus. Hook is interesting, well formated and its length is under the limit. Hook fact is accurate and is inline cited. QPQ was done. CeeGee 07:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
CeeGeeThanks for the review. I have fixed ref to the un-cited paragraph.Nvvchar. 11:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Pls comment on the copyvio issue or reword aricle if necessary. CeeGee 11:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
CeeGee Copyvio is less than 3% and is permitted. I am not able to see the words needing changeNvvchar. 14:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not concerned by the webot.org site, which I'm guessing is either a Wikipedia mirror or picking up a Wikipedia mirror; it didn't show up when I did a check just now. I am, however, a bit concerned about the similarities between the article and the two sources I spot-checked, FN1 (euromines.org) and FN4 (investingnews.com). My experience with the copyvio detector is that even with supposedly low numbers of 14.5% or 9.9% (as there were with these sources), there can easily be close paraphrasing. I'm going to ask Nikkimaria to take a look, since she's much better at drawing the line between paraphrasing and close paraphrasing than I am. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I see my mistake. Everything is fine now. Good to go. CeeGee 05:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I am restoring my comment, which was completely undone by CeeGee's confirmation just above, and also superseding the tick with a question mark icon, since my concerns about close paraphrasing were very real. We need to wait for Nikkimaria's assessment before this can safely be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I apolize for the situation I created. I had left open this page as I"ve gone to bed. And in the early morning I didn"t see your comment because the page stood at the stand I had left it. Pls note that my approval wasn"t against your comment but unaware of that. Sorry! CeeGee 18:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
CeeGee, sometimes the page editor lets you post even when it should refuse to save due to an edit conflict; it shouldn't have let you do what you did. No harm done, and the nomination can safely continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there is close paraphrasing here: compare for example "There was no labour legislation at all, and workers had no rights whatsoever such as specified working hours, medical care, etc. The colonial administration did not favour introduction of any legal regulations to protect the mining workers against exploitation. The then colonial secretary had refused to consider any kind of legislation of the welfare of mining workers" vs "There was no labour legislation at all, and workers had no rights whatsoever (eg. specified working hours, medical care, etc.). The colonial administration did nothing to introduce any legal regulation of the working relations that would protect the workers" in footnote 9. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
NikkimariaCopy editing has been done by User:SusunW. It should be OK now. I have included her name in the credits.Nvvchar. 02:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
That's great, though it looks like a bit more work is needed - eg. "The wastes of the metal extraction process, known as "ancient slug", lying outside the mines, contains minimal residual copper" vs "The waste of the metallurgical treatment, known as ancient slug, has minimal residues of copper". (This sentence has also been separated from the correct source). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Fix the bloody thing then. Articles do not have ownership, we all are responsible for their accuracy. Seriously, this is crazy. I don't check the sources in a blind edit, so that there is no chance of close paraphrasing. If there is an error in the sourcing just fix it. If you don't like the wording, fix it. You aren't the reviewer, it is not prohibited. I corrected the citation. SusunW (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for upsetting you - it was suggested that your copy-editing was to address the close-paraphrasing issue that I was asked to review, which would require you to look at the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not upset, I am frustrated. Why it is easier to get someone else to fix something rather than just do it, eludes me. Close paraphrasing does not require one to look at the sourcing, in fact, just the opposite, as the point is for it not to copy the text in the source. If one doesn't look at it, it cannot possibly match the source. Verifying the citations is a completely different matter. None of the previous discussion said a citation was incorrect, the comments stated that there was a problem with potential copyvios. SusunW (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
clarification: Copyediting and fact checking are two totally separate jobs in the real world and it doesn't seem logical that they would be considered a single job on WP. But in any case, this discussion is outside approving the article. Is there anything else required to get it approved? SusunW (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to see where the nomination stands after the recent edits, and in particular, whether the close paraphrasing and sourcing issues have been satisfied. Reviewer should also check the image, which has not previously been covered here. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Overall: Good To Go! Passes DYK checklist. The picture is currently at Commons and is public domain. I see no close paraphrasing or sourcing issues. It all looks good.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Article is new and long enough at 5,393 chars. It is overall inline cited, but the third paragraph of the "History" section lacks referencing. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports suspected copyvio at 96.8% with the source from Mining industry of Cyprus. Hook is interesting, well formated and its length is under the limit. Hook fact is accurate and is inline cited. QPQ was done. CeeGee 07:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I see my mistake. Everything is fine now. Good to go. CeeGee 05:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to see where the nomination stands after the recent edits, and in particular, whether the close paraphrasing and sourcing issues have been satisfied. Reviewer should also check the image, which has not previously been covered here. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Good To Go! Passes DYK checklist. The picture is currently at Commons and is public domain. I see no close paraphrasing or sourcing issues. It all looks good.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)