Talk:Clayton Knight Committee

Problems with Article

 * umm isnt "several pro-war German emigres" ambiguous - they could have been pro-war as Hitler was? Victuallers (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that I have found very long phrases that are identical to unattributed sources. I think this needs further re-wording of a substantial nature. Victuallers (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Victuallers I've been trying my best to fix the close paraphrasing. It's tough since originally the whole article was copied and pasted from another source. It'll take time to fix everything and get the percentage down from 98% to at least 39%. Mchuedem (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've located better sources and we are using them to improve the article. The close paraphrasing had been a long standing problem with this article possibly since its creation that wasn't known until the DYK review process started for the Clayton Knight article. The upside is that this is a much better article now and will only get better as it continues to be updated.  One of the ILL requests I put in for a source is unable to be filled.  But I have a few other irons in the fire.  TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Online sources for improving this article: and    TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work you two, but Im wondering how this gets to DYK. Articles have to be new GAs, or articles less than 7 days old when nominated or expanded by a factor of 5 in 7 days. I don't think this article fits in any of those categories. I suggest you remove this one from the DYK nom. Am I right? Victuallers (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was of the understanding that only one article in a DYK nom had to be new. In this case, it is the Clayton Knight article. I have no objection to pulling the Clayton Knight Committee from the nomination. TeriEmbrey (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)