- 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 Cielquiparle (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Oscar Ortiz (Bolivian politician)
Improved to Good Article status by Krisgabwoosh (talk). Self-nominated at 05:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
@Krisgabwoosh: Good article. 
AGF on spanish sources. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Krisgabwoosh and Onegreatjoke: I am unable to find text in the source provided to confirm the hook. Bruxton (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- In paragraph 3 under "2019 presidential campaign": Among those sharing such concerns included Ortiz's own running mate, Rodríguez, who unexpectedly withdrew his candidacy in July while Ortiz was on a campaign visit to Brazil. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Krisgabwoosh and Onegreatjoke: You have quoted our article, but I cannot find it in the provided source. Bruxton (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: Ah, I see. The Correo del Sur source only mentions his running mate pulling out. The next source in the text, from Oxígeno, mentions Ortiz refusing to withdraw. I've included it here now as well. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Krisgabwoosh: Please cite it in the article after the sentence. Bruxton (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: It already is? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Krisgabwoosh: I think the citation has to follow the sentence to support it. I clicked on the citation which followed the sentence and it does not support the sentence. Bruxton (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)CITETYPE#2. Bruxton (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: It wouldn't really make sense to put the citation there as him refusing to withdraw is not mentioned in the sentence. The hook may be one sentence, but it's using information from two separate sentences in the text. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the discussion. I should be able to click on the citation which directly follows the claim and find the information in the claim there. Right now that sentence is followed by a citation which does not support the claim. It is possible that I am wrong, so I will let someone else promote this to a prep or green tick it. Bruxton (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Krisgabwoosh: Good article. 
AGF on spanish sources. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
