Template:Did you know nominations/Russo-Georgian War
- 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Article has a "close paraphrasing" template on it, and extensive close paraphrasing was noted; a Good Article Reassessment is continuing. As the issues remain over two weeks later, the nomination is being closed as unsuccessful.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Russo-Georgian War
[edit]- ... that the Russo-Georgian War was the first in which cyber warfare coincided with military action?
- Comment: The article passed GA review on 4 December.
Improved to Good Article status by UA Victory (talk). Self nominated at 10:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC).
Hook is reliably cited. As mentioned, the article became a GA on Dec 4 [1]. Definitely long enough. GTG. Nice work. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Étienne Dolet, DYK reviewers should make all the standard check even with GAs; the GA reviewer may not have adequately checked for things like neutrality or close paraphrasing even if they were supposed to. In this case, I'm troubled by the Peace plan section's bulleted list in its second paragraph: it's an odd mixture of the two cited sources, but not quoting what's been taken word-for-word from the NYTimes translation or the Kremlin page's translation. I'm going to ask Nikkimaria to take a quick look at this to see what she recommends. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
We need to make it very clear which information is coming from which source, and which content is copied from that source versus simply cited to it. In order to have that clarity, you can't mix these in the way you are now. The list is short enough relative to both sources that you could simply quote it entirely from one or the other.- However, this article also contains close paraphrasing form other sources: the first paragraph of History is largely from here; "the brief 2004 war was a turning point for Russian policy in the region" vs "This brief war (which has been forgotten and eclipsed by “the hot August” of 2008) was a turning point in Russian policy in the region"; "The Russian military attempted a few new steps to support an information campaign. Russian journalists were brought along to report on the progress of the Russians in protecting Russian citizens and to propagandise Georgian "atrocities". The Russians used television footage to gain psychological affect as well with the local population in the separatist regions. The Russian government also used a military spokesman in television interviews to provide information on the conduct of the campaign, a first for Russia" vs "Operationally the Russian military attempted a few new steps in support of an information campaign .Russian journalists were brought along to share with domestic and international audiences the progress of Russian troops in protecting Russian citizens and of propagandizing Georgian atrocities. The Russians were able to use television footage to achieve some psychological affect as well with the local population in the breakaway regions....The Russian government also used a military spokesman in daily television interviews to provide information and answer questions on the conduct of the campaign, a first for Russia". In light of these problems, this article's GA status needs to be reviewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
