Template:Did you know nominations/United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi


 * 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

 * ... that the United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi is the fifth House committee to investigate this matter?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St John the Divine, Calder Grove
 * Comment: The article will be a bit more complete in its initial form when the Democrats decide who, if anyone, will be on the committee from their side. However, Congress is out of session for this week, so I am nominating the article now to get it within the five days requirement.  By the time the article is ready to go up on the main page, the Democratic members will be known and the article will be updated.
 * Update on comment: The minority members have now been named and are in the article, so this is no longer an issue. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Created by Artaxerxes (talk), Cmckain (talk), Wasted Time R (talk). Nominated by Wasted Time R (talk) at 14:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Date, length, hook checks out. --Soman (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This review needs more details, in accordance with DYK review instructions Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found  at  DYKReviewing guide. Yoninah (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment.I am old and new at DYK; I've been away a while – so excuse my ignorance. The hook technically is OK at under 2000 characters but is rather verbose: can we not cut United States to US in the hook and rescan? It seems an unlikely search target in the first place. Si Trew (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am okay with either the longer or the shorter form, and the DYK promoter will often choose which hook they think best. So two variations of the shorter:
 * ALT1 ... that the U.S. House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi is the fifth House committee to investigate this matter?
 * ALT2 ... that the House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi is the fifth U.S. House committee to investigate this matter?    Wasted Time R (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg New review for ALT1. New enough for 9 May, and long enough. QPQ done. No disambig links found. Citation #15 is flagged as having an access issue, but it works fine for me. Re the hook, I have struck the original hook due to length, and struck ALT2 because it sounds repetitive. That leaves ALT1 which is OK. Issues: (1) ALT1 checks out online with citation #5, although it took me some time to find the sentence about four previous committees and the intention to create another one. There is no word in the article relating to the number 5 ("five", fifth", "5th" etc). I think that the hook should be repeated in the article alongside citation #5. (2) No doubt the Investigation and report section has been edited in good faith to show that it is a quote, but it doesn't look like a quote. In order that it does not look like a copyvio, it needs to either (a) have quotation marks around every line, or to (b) have a statement before or after it that items 1-7 are quotations. If issue s 1 and 2 can be resolved then this nom can be passed.--Storye book (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at this. I'm not sure what your concern is with issue 1; WP:CALC permits us to say that if four similar things have happened before this, then this is the fifth such thing.  As for issue 2, yes this is a copy (modified in a couple of places for conciseness), but it is not a copyvio, since the source is a Congressional act, which is a U.S. federal government document and like all such documents, in the public domain.  We have many articles on U.S. laws and acts of Congress and members of Congress that repeat such material verbatim.  Now what those articles generally do - random example, John Ambrose Meyer - is add a footer like "This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress".  So I have now added a similar footer into this article, to make it clear that material has been incorporated.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, User:Wasted Time R, for clarifying my point (2) above. I've struck it out as redundant. I take your point about point (1) but unfortunately that is not enough to pass for DYK in my opinion. The DYK box on the front page is designed to catch casual surfers/browsers; people with a short attention span; people who are not going to take time to carefully read this dense article to find the bit referred to in the hook. When you see a page of dense text and want to know more about the hook quickly, you first look for it in the header, and if that fails then you do a page search, and the best bet is a search for "fifth" - and of course it doesn't come up in your text at present. So if you must present the hook's meaning in the article in wording very different from the hook, please could you kindly repeat that different wording in the header with its citation? --Storye book (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added an NPR source that explicitly states 'fifth' and I've added language in the article that explicitly says 'fifth'. See if this seems okay to you.   Wasted Time R (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg All issues resolved now; thank you. Hook now checks out online with citations #5 and #6. Good to go (at last!).--Storye book (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)