Template:Did you know nominations/Appropriations Committee Suite
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Appropriations Committee Suite
edit
Bellona, the Goddess of War at the U.S. Capitol
- ... that the entrance to Room S-128 in the United States Capitol is topped by a fresco named Bellona, the Goddess of War?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Clementia Killewald
- Comment: Note that this article makes extensive use of Public Domain text and Earwig may return a high probability of copyvio.
Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 04:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC).
- ALT1: ... that over the entrance to Room S-128 in the United States Capitol is a fresco of Bellona, the Goddess of War? Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Article is long enough and new enough. All suggested hooks are referenced but I prefer Johnbod's suggestion. QPQ done. But there is extensive sections which are copied verbatim from the Public Domain sources. As someone who uses PD sources in articles as well, I don't think that is allow even with the proper attribution unless they are quoting the sources.Could they be written in your own words? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: Based on Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Appropriations Committee Suite, you will need to expand the article a little more with originally phrased contents not copied and paste from PD sources (to reach 1,500 characters). Earwig tool for some reason is not working for me anymore at the moment for some reason, although it did work before and show me earlier that basically all the paragraphs of the separate rooms are copy verbatim, so you have roughly 800 characters right now without the paragraphs. After that it will be good to go. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please see the comment, above, under section titled "comment." Virtually the entire article is copied verbatim from PD material, except for a few grammar amendments I added. This is noted with the (PD) notification in the references in the article. I don't believe the DYK criteria preclude that; only plagiarism (which this can't be since there's no copyright on it, and the source is credited) or close paraphrasing (which it also can't be as it's copied verbatim, not paraphrased). The 1500 character rule only demands 1500 characters of "readable prose". LavaBaron (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
In that case, I will AGF on this issue.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR: please re-evaluate. Rule 2b specifically addresses PD materials. It reads: "DYK articles may freely reuse public domain text per Wikipedia's usual policy, with proper attribution. However, because the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content, text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles, and from the ×5 expansion count for ×5 expanded articles." (emphasis added) This was codified in January 2012. I take no position on the disposition of this nomination, but your decision needs to be made based on the rule as it exists. EdChem (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)- PS: Thanks to Antony-22 who reminded all of us about Rule 2b and its relevance to this nomination in the WT:DYK discussion. EdChem (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please see the comment, above, under section titled "comment." Virtually the entire article is copied verbatim from PD material, except for a few grammar amendments I added. This is noted with the (PD) notification in the references in the article. I don't believe the DYK criteria preclude that; only plagiarism (which this can't be since there's no copyright on it, and the source is credited) or close paraphrasing (which it also can't be as it's copied verbatim, not paraphrased). The 1500 character rule only demands 1500 characters of "readable prose". LavaBaron (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
