- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Gholhak Garden
edit- ... that Gholhak Garden, a British diplomatic compound in northern Tehran, has been at the center of diplomatic controversy between Britain and Iran?
- Reviewed: TAT Technologies[1]
Created/expanded by Plot Spoiler (talk). Self nom at 06:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Length, date and hook are fine but there seem to be some close paraphrasing issues. See [here] and [here], though these Duplicate Detector reports do include some direct quotes mentioned in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I've done some distancing from sourcing - do you think that's enough? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the work you put in. Looks good. Can be really tough to avoid close paraphrasing issues. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is that a tick or not? Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to do some distancing of sourcing and feel we're far enough away. If someone else thinks so as well I guess we have a consensus. If more work is needed we can tweak it a bit more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- This suggests that we are still not there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Going through them, the first two are actually the reference (FN1), I rejigged the third one, and the fourth one. The fifth one is partly a direct quote. The remainder are shortish segments and phrases that are difficult to reword, though some are doable possibly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- No problems with the first and second (don't know why it is showing up twice). I was mainly indicating the third and fourth. To be safe, it should be run against the sources again. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I get [2] this now. The phrases left are a bunch of short snippets. Question is can some be changed without changing the meaning or do we think we've got the balance between praphrasing and risk of variance of meaning from source about right. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the trees bit can be changed; I'll give it a go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot that was a quote. This looks good to me now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
