Template:Did you know nominations/Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay

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 BorgQueen (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay

(

)

... that pesticide poisoning experienced by Paraguayan farmers was found to violate their right to life? Source: "...the UN Human Rights Committee issued a damming resolution, concluding that the Paraguayan government's inadequate response to the illegal soy fumigations violated a series of fundamental human rights, including the right to life, the right to home and family, and the right to remedy from harm."
- ALT1: ... that the UN Human Rights Committee recognized a correlation between the right to life and protection of the environment in Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay? Source: "In its August 2019 decision in Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay , the Human Rights Committee recognised, for the first time, the existence of a connection between environmental protection and the right to life with dignity."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Vampyrellida

Created by Gobonobo (talk). Self-nominated at 22:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

This review is for ALT1 which is more compelling IMO.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - A bit high. 39% for https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342662110, 34% for https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/toxic-takeaways/, and 27% for https://ijrcenter.org/2019/08/22/un-human-rights-committee-recognizes-environmental-harm-as-rights-violation/

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Interesting article, good quality and writing! The Earwig results are too high for 3 sources. I understand that most of them are quotes, but there are a bit too many quotes as per MOS:QUOTE and some would be better if rewritten. Some close paraphrases as well. Otherwise all good. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: I see that you rewrote a few sentences, but it didn't bring down the percentages. In fact, Earwig now found 5 sources between 27 and 39% similarity. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @P199:. I've reworked the article to address close paraphrasing and removed several quotes. At this point, I think Earwig is just picking up the remaining quote and the many proper names. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 08:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

for ALT1. Good work. Reviewing the Earwig comparison, I agree that the remaining similarities are related to the remaining quote, some common word combinations, and proper names. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)