Template:Did you know nominations/Bonifacio Trial House


 * 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 00:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Bonifacio Trial House

 * ... that the Teodorico Reyes Ancestral House served as a military court, and saw the trial of Andres Bonifacio in 1897?
 * Comment: First self-nomination
 * Comment: First self-nomination

Created by Charles Boris Manez (talk). Self nominated at 13:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. --ceradon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg article is (luckily) 7 days old at the time this was nominated, and long enough with inline citations. There are only two references, which I think is enough, but it will be much better with more sources. QPQ is not needed for a first-timer. The hook is okay, but make sure to have an inline source after mentioning the hook in the article. The main problem, however, is its close paraphrasing issues: a 99.1% copyvio was detected, which is a huge violation. Please change your article and come back here to comment before it's too late. Thank you. 001Jrm (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , the site linked to the copyvio tool mirrors the Wikipedia article. The contents were originally posted in Wikipedia. --carlojoseph14 (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed. The external site in question is not only a Wikimedia Philippines site, but it directly links back to the English Wikipedia Bonifacio Trial House page, clearly indicating that the English Wikipedia article is the source. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * whoops, my bad. But then, there's still a 42.9% possible violation in the article by using a couple of phrases from the source. I suggest that someone make some edits and tweak the phrases to be free of possible violations. Then, I think it'll be good to go. :) 001Jrm (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 001Jrm, when you think there is close paraphrasing or copyright violations, please give an actual example or two of what you believe the problematic phrases to be as they appear in the source and the article. The Copyvio tool's percentages should not be used in reviews, just the issues you find. It's also helpful to place a notification template on the nominator's talk page if there are DYK problems to address. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Clicked the link, results are violation unlikely. --carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset: Thanks for letting me know. I just imitated that in one of my DYK reviewers before but that's not important anymore and here's not even the place to rant. Thanks anyways.
 * carlojoseph14: Let me do this one more time. I'm not sure why it's completely free of violations today, unlike the last time, so let me just give you examples as @BlueMoonset suggested. The following phrases from the source and the article are similar to each other:
 * ...to unite the Katipuneros under a single leadership. The Magdalo faction nominated Emilio Aguinaldo...
 * ...his authority as presiding officer, declared the proceedings null and void...
 * ...with treason and sedition. On May 6, they were sentenced...
 * ...upon Bonifacio’s insistence, opened his sealed orders...
 * Although the arrangement of the phrases were changed, there are still similarities between them. It's not that trivial but it's better to paraphrase them instead. I already left a message on Charles Boris Manez's talk page to let him know our discussion. Thanks! :) 001Jrm (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg It's been two weeks since this was last reviewed but there remains a significant amount of close paraphrasing in the article. I'm also concerned about the lack of sources given (two sources: one is a government source, the other is a plaque). Unfortunately, the nominator has not logged since nominating here. Fuebaey (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)