Template:Did you know nominations/Pacific Architects and Engineers

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Pacific Architects and Engineers edit

(

)

... ~~that PAE has been called "the KBR of the State Department"?~~

ALT1 ... that during the Vietnam War, Pacific Architects and Engineers provided cover for the CIA's Phoenix Program?
Reviewed: ~~forthcoming~~ Template:Did you know nominations/Ottawa Art Gallery

Created/expanded by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 01:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC).

DYK checklist template

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - n

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - n
Interesting: - n

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed:
Used in article:
Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: See below.

The phrase "RM Asia funneled subcontracts paid for by the government" garners nine non-WP hits in Google search. I am left with the feeling that there may be more such if I checked further. Also, the hook is sourced, but comprehension is dependent upon a footnote at bottom of article. I do not know of a WP consensus that covers this eventuality; however, I regard it as unsatisfactory. While it may be fair to baffle the reader to draw attention, it's not fair to let them still be baffled after reading the article, or require them to search for a footnote.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I've provided an alt hook and have completed the QPQ. To the copyvio question, I don't believe attributed quotes, with an inline citation and indicated by quotation marks, transgress copyvio per WP:NFCCEG? Chetsford (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine. Agree on the hook though, and ALT1 is more fun anyway! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: are you giving this a tick so it can be promoted? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Am I allowed to? I did not do a complete review, only on the hook. If that is enough, then yes, I'd be happy to get this one going. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Well, then, full review needed. Yoninah (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

ALT1 is good to go. I've re-reviewed: article is long enough, neutral and has inline citations to serious sources. It was created on January 3 and nominated on January 4, in plenty of time, and was long enough at that stage too. I looked for copyright issues and didn't find any. The overlaps highlighted by Earwig's tool are direct quotations and not an issue. ALT1 is interesting and both the references given for it in the article check out (ideally we'd have page numbers for the book reference, but Google Books doesn't provide them and it's easy to find the reference with a 'Search Inside'). QPQ complete. I've struck ALT0 for clarity because ALT1 is much stronger. Mortee (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)