Template:Did you know nominations/Operation: All Clear
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Operation All Clear
[edit]- ... that Operation All Clear was the first and only operation conducted by the Royal Bhutan Army?
Created by Catlemur (talk). Self nominated at 16:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
Article is new and long enough. It has inline citations. However, I cannot find the hook in the article. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Please review again the article, close paraphrasing issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlojoseph14 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- While this does seem to be something of an issue with FN9 (defence.pk)—Carlojoseph14, it is good practice to give an example of the close paraphrasing you found, comparing article and source—my problem is more that it is being used as a reliable source; it appears to be user contributions without any editorial supervision; some of the material being used is from a quoted section where the source of the original text is not identified, and it is not even quoted in this article. This is not the only source with questionable reliability: there's varnam.nationalinterest.in (FN7), a "blog on Indian history"; bhutannews.blogspot.gr (FN2), another blog; www.tibet.ca (FN11), an advocacy group. I'm stopping at this point; there may be more in the final ten source citations. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
All above mentioned refs fixed.--Catlemur (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Catlemur, while you may have removed some of the refs, you left their material in the article. I mentioned that I had confirmed Carlojoseph14's close paraphrasing issues with the defence.pk site—now that you have removed the reference to it, there is no acknowledgement of the source of your material, which made the matter even more serious. I have deleted the virtually identical material from the article (under "By 27 December 2003" and "By 3 January 2004" in the Operation section); it will have to be completely rewritten if you wish to include it again in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Remade the delete sections.Any more issues?--Catlemur (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- absolutely fine, 're-written' sections so small that creating a copyvio would be impressive (I checked, they're not). Seems good to go! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
