Template:Did you know nominations/Svetlana Kalinkina

Svetlana Kalinkina

 * ... that an entire print run of Svetlana Kalinkina newspaper was seized by the Belarusian police?
 * Reviewed: Muang Sing

Created/expanded by Khazar (talk). Self nom at 13:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Well-structured article of sufficient length, checked the key citations; article created 1 Feb; hook not too long; perhaps add "of 30,000 copies" to hook? Or could go just as it is. Happy either way.


 * ALT hook: ... that an entire print run of 30,000 copies of Svetlana Kalinkina newspaper was seized by the Belarusian police?  Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that phrasings in this article may be too close to those of the source, particularly these two. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the IFEX article's case, there are short fragments of two sentences which are fairly close in wording, but having read it and the WP article side by side it did seem very minor, and given the source was correctly cited it does seem fair usage: I tried to redraft the paragraph in my head and found it hard to modify the wording much, as it's plain and factual: we could turn parts of it into direct quotes with speech marks if you like but frankly that's overkill.
 * In the CPJ article's case, there are again a few fragments which are fairly close, but these are both rearranged with respect to the source, and blended skilfully with material from the other sources. E.g. "As the editor of the popular Minsk business daily BDG..." becomes "In 2003, she was editor of BDG, a popular business daily based in Minsk." I think that's a perfectly decent bit of paraphrasing - there are only so many ways it could be put.
 * All in all the sources seem to have been used appropriately and cited correctly. I'd be happy to edit the article but haven't found any need to do so.Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Correctness of citations is not an issue here, but close paraphrasing is not limited to direct copying of text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The guideline warns against using it extensively, which is not happening here; and explicitly allows it when there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing, which is certainly the case here; and it would have been an issue ("When is close paraphrase permitted?") if there was not in-text attribution, which is why I did mention the citations. But if you are still concerned then we could simply put in direct quotations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I could see, the only problematic paraphrasing was in the first paragraph of the first section. I suggested an alternate wording in the article, which restructures it so that is no longer a simple three-part list. (Feel free to change it, though!) I can't see any other problems, so I would say this is good to go. Moswento (talk &#124; contribs) 13:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go Moswento (talk &#124; contribs) 10:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)