Template:Did you know nominations/Michael IV the Paphlagonian


 * 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 Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Michael IV the Paphlagonian

 * ... that before becoming Emperor of Byzantium, the young Michael IV was the previous emperor's body servant and his wife's lover? Source: Norwich, John Julius (1993), Byzantium: The Apogee, London: Penguin, ISBN 0-14-011448-3 p. 275-80
 * Reviewed: Up to date with QPQ. Cashing in Alicia Cuarón

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 18:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Happy to review this! Qualifies for DYK by being promoted to GA within last 7 days. As a GA, it has obvs already been reviewed against quality-related criteria so I am happy to have good faith in that review. In terms of the hook, it's good although the potential for a bit of ambiguity in terms of "his wife". I thought it meant Michael's wife when I first read it. Just a nitpick. QPQ done. Great job! Good to go.--Coin945 (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Please review this nomination against the DYK criteria. Often we find GAs that have problems with close paraphrasing and other DYK criteria, and sometimes we even have them de-listed. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Okay, giving this another crack. Due to the close paraphrasing of a source, I'm inclined to change my vote. Only once it is copyedited to remove copyvio can it be approved. Hmm.. somehow this article successfully became a GA despite that... :/ --Coin945 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Eligible - been promoted to good article status within seven days of nomination
 * Long enough – the prose portion contains 9514 characters
 * Is neutral - article reads as a biography of a person, neither overly critical or overly praising. I believe it is neutral.
 * Cites sources with inline citations - article uses two primary sources and seven secondary sources which are placed into text using inline citations
 * Paraphrasing/copyvio/plagiarism - Earwig's Copyvio Detector came back with a score of "Violation Suspected - 90.6%" to the website: http://www.geni.com/people/Michael-IV-the-Paphlagonian-Byzantine-Emperor/385929885890010277
 * Hook format – fewer than 200 characters
 * Hook content is interesting, at least to me, and is cited with an inline citation
 * QPQ – has been completed

Hi. Thanks for picking this one up. I'm glad that you like the hook. The "copyvio" is to Geni, which routinely lifts Wikipedia articles wholesale to fill out its pages. If you look at any of its other pages, eg Zoe Porphyrogenita which was the top left link for me, you will see a high match with Wikipedia. This is not because editors and routinely using Geni as a source; you can see from the article(s) history that they have been built up over 10 years or more. The only reason that Earwig is not 100% is because Geni only updates periodically.

Re-reading I am not sure if I have been clear; if not, give me a ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm deferring to on this. :)--Coin945 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * when you use Earwigs, you have to unclick the second box under the title line, the one labeled "Use search engine". Otherwise you will come up with all sorts of Wikipedia mirror sites.  Only "Copyvio search" and "Use links in page" should be checked off. Did you notice that geni.com is not even cited in this article? Here is the correct Earwigs analysis:  Yoninah (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh damn, gotta be careful with those mirror sites. That's the first time Earwigs has tripped me up. Well, the correct analysis is "Violation Unlikely - 9.1%", so I guess it's all good to go! :)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Passed - unless there's any objections from Yoninah--Coin945 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)