Template:Did you know nominations/Red goats of Kingston

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: rejected by EncycloPetey (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Red goats of Kingston

(

)

... that even though one of the artists who stenciled the red goats of Kingston (pictured) confessed, police still don't know the significance of the numbers painted on them?

Created/expanded by True Pagan Warrior (talk). Self nom at 02:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me: article in recently created/in good standing, reliable source supports hook, and hook itself is interesting. María (yllo submarine) 23:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Some concerns about wording being too close to the source. Compare for example "the suspects be ordered to remove all graffiti from the city "with a toothbrush" should be they convicted" vs "if the suspects are convicted, the judge should order them to remove all graffiti in the city “with a toothbrush.”", or "Salesman confessed after being confronted with security camera footage" vs "one of the suspects confessed after she was confronted with videotape which was shot from a security camera", or "did not feel that the project had a thorough public hearing" vs "without a thorough public hearing". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the first time I've had such a concern raised, on-wiki or off (I'm a journalist in my time away from here), so could you walk me through exactly what you're asking for? I'm pretty sure this isn't a plagiarism concern, because whether it's a direct quote or a paraphrase, it's not plagiarism if it's attributed. Thank you in advance for clearly spelling out the steps for me!--~T P W 02:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi TPW, my concern is that the wording you're using is so close to the source that it should be either in quotation marks or rephrased. Take a look at WP:Close paraphrasing. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know when an essay started carrying the force of guideline or policy, but I would never put something in quotes unless it deserved them, i.e., when it's word for word. Some other edits have been made to the article, but unless your objection is rooted in policy or a well-established guideline, I'm going to suggest that other editors politely overrule your objections.--~T P W 14:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:COPYVIO, which references WP:PLAGIARISM which explains close paraphrasing. Also see WP:WL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think suggesting I look at the wikilawyering page is more than a bit of bad faith, but c'est la vie. Up until that point, your comment was constructive, so I will ignore that last and thank you for those links, which I will review at another time.--~T P W 14:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No progress toward resolving highlighted issues for past 2 weeks. --Allen3 ^talk 11:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)