Template:Did you know nominations/Boerehaat

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 Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Boerehaat

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that during the apartheid era South Africa's National Party won a by-election in Oudtshoorn after waging a "Boerehaat campaign"?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus

Improved to Good Article status by HelenOnline (talk). Self nominated at 07:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC).

• Recent GA nominated on time, QPQ done. Each para is sourced with at least two sources. AGF on hook as the specified page is not available under preview. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Vensatry, you can preview page 68 of the second source here, see last sentence of second paragraph and third footnote. HelenOnline 10:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, but the ref. says the page no. to b 117. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• That mid-sentence ref is also available under preview if you search for 117 in the book, but it is not relevant to the hook only the preceding phrase in the sentence regarding language demographics of supporters of the opposition party. HelenOnline 22:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Vensatry: did you do the requisite close paraphrasing checks? Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: I always thought copy-vio checks are an integral part of WP:GA?. I had to AGF on the nominator in this regard. —Vensatry _(ping) 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Vensatry: believe it or not, we have also found copyvios in GA noms at DYK, so we have to re-check these articles by DYK rules, too. Here is a handy tool to check copyvios on all articles. Yoninah (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Apologies for not turning up, and thanks for the tool. @HelenOnline: I don't find any significant copy-vios with the tool. However, it does contain a few sentences with close paraphrasing. Can you please look into it? —Vensatry _(ping) 12:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Vensatry: please can you be more specific. Which sentences are you referring to? Direct quotations will trigger the tool, but they are allowed. HelenOnline 14:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If you check the tool, there are some sentences that contain closely paraphrased texts (barring the quotes) from these three refs: [1], [2] and [3]. —Vensatry _(ping) 09:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: I don't see any problem with the first two links, which contain text quoted directly and attributed as such, and I am not sure what the relevance of the third link is at all. If you feel a particular sentence is too closely paraphrased, please post both sentences, from Wikipedia and the source, below otherwise we will be going around in circles forever. HelenOnline 13:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Dup detector tool is down it seems. Checked the three refs. listed with high confidence. That's because of the quotes that are used in the article. No copy-vio found. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)