Template:Did you know nominations/Meadow knapweed

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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Meadow knapweed

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Meadow knapweed

• ... that meadow knapweed (pictured) is a hybrid between black knapweed and brown knapweed, which were both introduced to North America? Source: https://www.nps.gov/articles/meadow-knapweed.htm
  • ALT1: ... that after black knapweed and brown knapweed were introduced to North America, they hybridized to form meadow knapweed (pictured)? Source: same
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Antimonumento +43
  • Comment: Includes some public domain text, but I think that's only an issue for 5x expansion, whereas this is a new article.

Created by Mbdfar (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 17:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC).

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

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @LordPeterII and Mbdfar: Good article. However, Earwig is reporting an eighty-one percent copyright violation that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: The article incorporates text from a publication by a US government agency, which is considered public domain. Guidelines followed from WP:FREECOPY. Not a copyright violation. Mbdfar (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke and Mbdfar: Uh, for a moment I was confused and worried, but yeah, that's exactly it: Per the rules, 2.b. "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." So not a copyright issue, but still something to watch out for. I am not sure how to assess how much text is copied and how much is new, but given that the article is at 4119 characters, I reckon it should pass 1500 new ones even if half of it is copied (though I was wrong assuming it was irrelevant for new article).

If an experienced DYK editor wants to chime in on how to assess whether or not the article suffices, that might be good. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: A (maybe naïve) check based on the Earwig comparison yields roughly 1700 characters for me that are not marked as possible violations. So it's surprisingly narrow, but I'd say it passes the 1500 level. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Alright then, approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)