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
BorgQueen (
talk) 12:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Overall: Interesting article, good quality and writing! The Earwig results are too high for 3 sources. I understand that most of them are quotes, but there are a bit too many quotes as per
MOS:QUOTE and some would be better if rewritten. Some close paraphrases as well. Otherwise all good. -- P 1 9 9✉ 17:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@
Gobonobo: I see that you rewrote a few sentences, but it didn't bring down the percentages. In fact, Earwig now found 5 sources between 27 and 39% similarity. -- P 1 9 9✉ 14:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @
P199:. I've reworked the article to address close paraphrasing and removed several quotes. At this point, I think Earwig is just picking up the remaining quote and the many proper names.
gobonobo+c 08:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
for ALT1. Good work. Reviewing the Earwig comparison, I agree that the remaining similarities are related to the remaining quote, some common word combinations, and proper names. -- P 1 9 9✉ 13:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)