Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Maeng Da
- 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 Allen3 talk 19:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Operation Maeng Da
[edit]- ... that Operation Maeng Da translates as "Operation Pimp"?
Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 16:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC).
New and long enough, all non-lead paragraphs have inline citations, QPQ performed, content of the hook is sourced with an inline citation in the article to an offline source (AGF that the source verifies content), checks for copyvio reveals no problems (e.g. [1]). The second paragraph in the Overview section was copied from Operation Honorable Dragon, which is also a new article DYK nomination here, so this text does not count toward the character minimum for this article, but the article is still long enough (see supplementary guideline #A5). North America1000 22:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why, yes indeedy, I did use that same paragraph of mine in two of my articles. I often use identical Overview and Background material in different articles. I do not expect the recycled text to count towards article length, as I don't think I have ever submitted a new article to DYK shorter than 5,000 bytes; of that, 10% might be rerun text. The advantages of Overview and Background material to frame the events in my obscure niche of history pretty much compel their usage. At the same time, why should I waste energy maddening myself with constantly paraphrasing myself?
- I want it clearly understood that I am not gaming the system. I usually supply at least twice the minimum requirement in original material in every article I submit to DYK.
- I have doing this for quite a while now. This is the first time a reviewing editor has been sharp enough to catch the rerun text. I think this reviewer deserves a Barnstar for diligence.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Georgejdorner: No worries. I simply included this in the review so that an approver will be aware that I noticed this matter, and that I didn't include the content in the total character count. North America1000 03:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- The hook remains good to go. North America1000 03:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
