Template:Did you know nominations/Cemetery for North Korean and Chinese Soldiers


 * 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 97198 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Cemetery for North Korean and Chinese Soldiers

 * ... that the Cemetery for North Korean and Chinese Soldiers in Paju, South Korea, contains the graves of North Korean agents killed on espionage missions in the South?

Created by Mztourist (talk). Self nominated at 03:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article was nominated on time, is well over the minimum length at 2526 prose characters according to DYKcheck, and appears neutral. The specific hook fact (about the agents' graves) is not given a source by the end of the article body sentence that contains it as required; indeed, that first paragraph of History is entirely unsourced, and needs to be by DYK standards. The big problem here is the opening sentence of the third paragraph of History, which is a clear copyvio: an entire sentence from the source was copied, with a few words interpolated into the middle (shown in brackets): "Between 1981 and 1989, North Korea accepted the remains of 42 Chinese soldiers from South Korea [through the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission] and transferred them to Beijing". BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. The source is the Reuters article referenced in the 2nd paragraph; I have added the ref up to the first para. I have reworded the third para. Regards Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg The hook is now sourced per DYK requirements (which also takes care of the first History paragraph sourcing), and the copyvio has been addressed via valid paraphrasing. The article remains long enough, nominated on time, and still appears neutral, so it is approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)