Template:Did you know nominations/Param Vir Chakra
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Param Vir Chakra
[edit]- ... that Param Vir Chakra is the highest military decoration of India? Source: Know India
- ALT1:... that Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military decoration, has been awarded 21 times, of which 14 were posthumous awards? Source: NCERT 2016, p. 5.
- Reviewed: Lysmata grabhami
Improved to Good Article status by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk). Self-nominated at 15:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC).
Length, Date, Cite, and QPQ all check out for both hooks however Earwigs Copyvio Dector flagged the article. The first flag (a youtube video) appears to have copied the article as the article's history predates the video's upload date however the next few flags to Indian Military websites appear to be close paraphrasing or direct copies. From what I can see at Copyright in India, government works are not Public Domain (as they are in the US) which raises some concerns for me. Best, Mifter (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Mifter: The test from the "Indian Military websites" is the eligibility statement which cannot be altered, it is smae as presenting a quotation. Please observe carefully. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is unfortunately, still a close paraphrasing. We need to either enclose it in quotes directly to indicate that it is copied from an official source or rephrase to not be so similar. For one example, the "Eligible Categories" of serviceman for the award does not need to be verbatim copied, it could be reworded without changing its meaning but not running the risk of copyright violations. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Mifter: Added the quotes. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- should be good to go. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)