Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Angola

< Template:Did you know nominations
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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator

DYK toolbox

Corruption in Angola edit

(
)

* ... that in 2016 Transparency International named the daughter of Angola's president one of the most corrupt individuals and organizations in all of Africa?

5x expanded by DaltonCastle (talk). Self-nominated at 01:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment: the high copyvio percentage is almost exclusively the long names of organizations or laws, or, on a handful of occasions, quotations I attribute.
  • Nice article but unfortunately it was not five-time expanded. This revision is what the article was like before you started expanding. It was 4791 characters. The current version is 19582 characters long. 4791x5 = 23995. You need to expand the article by a further 4413 characters for it to be compliant with DYK rules. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh no! I missed that! I'll try to add some other content to make it meet requirements. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice, DaltonCastle, the article has reached a 5x expansion now. (Currently 24750 characters, which is 755 characters over what was required. Heres my full review
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - Yes for ALT0, ALT1 and ALT 2 but no for ALT3 (I couldn't find any mention in the source) and no for ALT4 (source doesn't back up hook)
  • Interesting: No - ALT0 and ALT2 are my preferred on the interest front.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  • ALT0: Someone's daughter can't be an "entity". EEng 07:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    True. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    • "Corrupt individuals and organizations". Done. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to continue the review; nothing has been done here in over a month, and previous reviewer has retired. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment There are far too many very short sections and paragraphs - much of it is in a notes format. 05:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I can combine these sections if it solves it. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @DaltonCastle: there are 2 inline tags in the article that need to be fixed; a {{when}} tag and a {{clarify}} tag. I fixed a couple other tags for you, but I can't access the sources for those two. Fix them and ping me and I'll do a full review, this has been pending too long. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
        • @ONUnicorn: I believe I have addressed both concerns but didn't want to remove the tags without your approval. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • General eligibility:
  • New enough: Yes
  • Long enough: No - Not a 5x expansion
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Expansion began October 24. At that time the article was 9,536 bytes total. Readable prose was 4,256 characters by my count. Currently it is 19,199 characters and 32,221 bytes. Neither of those indicates quite a 5x expansion. By my calculations it should be about 47,680 bytes or 21,280 characters (not counting spaces) to be a 5x expansion. However, I see that between October 31-November 2 there was a removal of information about Isabel Dos Santos from the article, due to BLP concerns. With that material included, the article was a 5x expansion, without it it isn't. It needs further expansion.

I think the article as currently written is pretty neutral, especially for an article about corruption in a country. However, I note that one needs to be careful in an article such as this to remain neutral, especially where living persons are concerned.

I've struck hook 0 as it is no longer supported by the article, due to the removal of the section on her. I've struck Alt 3, as the previous reviewer is correct that it is not supported by the source cited for it. I also tagged the place in the article that states it, and that will need to be addressed. Alt 4 relies on the same source, but the source also does not speak about arrests. I'm striking it for the same reason. Alt 1 and Alt 2 are acceptable. I strongly prefer Alt 2.

Fix the length issue and the failed verification issue and this will be good to go. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I struck the content from the page, since I could not find a replacement source. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
ONUnicorn, thank you for taking this on. The gold standard for determining length in prose characters at DYK is WP:DYKcheck, or you can use prosesize.js or one of the other counters. Bytes are completely irrelevant and confusing. Prose includes words and the spaces and punctuation that separate them. It does not include text in lists and tables. Yellow Dingo's original review had the numbers almost right: 4791 prose characters before, 23995 required size (should have been 23955, 40 fewer characters than listed). DYKcheck currently returns 21756 prose characters after the most recent edits today, meaning 2199 are needed to achieve the 23955 required. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset I don't use js counters. I copy-paste into Microsoft Word and use the character count from that. It's pretty accurate. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 02:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I just took a quick look at the article, and noticed that a number of the references are bare URLs, which are not allowed at DYK. These will also have to be addressed by DaltonCastle. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you to the editor that solved this. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've been looking over the page regarding the last issue (length) and frankly I'm not sure I can find that much replacement material in the next few days and had already planned on putting energy into some other pages. It's not the end of the world to cancel this nomination, if that's easiest. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The amount needed to pass is a lot and I'm sure nobody wants to be waiting for an unspecified length of time before there's new stuff. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • DaltonCastle, we might be willing to wait through the weekend, but not an unspecified length of time given that this nomination is already over three months old already. If you aren't prepared to prioritize this article, which means adding 2398 prose characters to the 21597 the article currently has in the next few days, the nomination should be closed; if you want to withdraw it now, we can do that. Please confirm what you'd like to do. Thank you. Note that should the article ever become a Good Article, it can be renominated at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Corruption_in_Angola&oldid=944428942"