Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Temperer
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Operation Temperer
edit- ... that under Operation Temperer, thousands of British Army troops can be deployed to support police in guarding key sites in the UK against terrorist threats?
Created by Prioryman (talk). Self-nominated at 23:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC).
New enough. Long enough. Can't see where the specific hook fact is cited at the end of a a sentence in the article. The article is mostly about other troop deployments in the UK and other countries, and needs more specific content. Earwig returns " Violation Suspected 86.1%". For example, the source has "Operation Temperer is a plan to deploy troops to support police officers in key locations following a major terrorist attack. It was put into effect for the first time following the Manchester Arena bombing." and the article, "Operation Temperer is a British government plan to deploy troops to support police officers in key locations following a major terrorist attack. It was put into effect for the first time on 23 May 2017 following the Manchester Arena bombing." This represents a serious copyright violation, and it is not the only copyvio issue. Also, the QPQ review does not address all the required criteria. Edwardx (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The specific hook fact is cited in the very first reference in the article [1]. There is a copyvio issue, but not in the direction that you apparently think. The author of this external article has plagiarised large chunks of it from the Wikipedia article that I wrote. Look at the dates: the Wikipedia article was published and nominated on 23 May while the external article was published on 24 May. Chunks of it appear to also have been plagiarised from 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. You need to bear in mind that Earwig will only show you that content has been duplicated - it will not show you in which direction the duplication has taken place. Also, what is missing from the QPQ review? Prioryman (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oops. Very sorry, Prioryman. Will look into this again and report back soon! Edwardx (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for the erroneous copyvio concerns. The citation is at the end of the para, rather than the sentence, so only a minor issue. As for the QPQ, you make no comment on its neutrality or compliance with copyright, but as it has gone through, I'll let that go. Edwardx (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Prioryman: Could you address the "citation needed" tag so that this hook can be promoted? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Sure, done. Actually, I've taken it out - someone else seems to have added it and I can't find anything to back it up. Prioryman (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Replacing tick. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
