A fact from Government Palace, Dili appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 April 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Timor, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Timor on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East TimorWikipedia:WikiProject East TimorTemplate:WikiProject East TimorWikiProject East Timor
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.
Overall: @Bahnfrend:, Great work on this article, well sourced, and quite a fascinating article at that. Earwig's copyvio detector says 50% copied, but that was mostly a long quote that was in quotations that was sourced. If possible, can you reword "By 2012 Gusmao had become aware of the bugging and initiated confidential proceedings in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, seeking to have CMATS declared void because Australia had acted in bad faith by spying during the negotiations.", as this is near-identical to the source, probably unintentionally. Let me know when you finish your QPQ and changing that sentence and it should be all set. Wishing the best and you got this! Ornithoptera (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ornithoptera: Thanks for your review. I have now done a QPQ. I have also modified the relevant passages. Earwig now says 47%, and that is perhaps not much of a reduction. But as you say, a relatively short passage expressly quoted from a cited source is not plagiarism or a copy vio; and in my view it is similarly not plagiarism or a copyvio to use, in an initial reference in an article, a full name and description of a place such as "Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague" or "United Nations in New York". The 47% includes both of those passages, plus some similar ones, plus the quoted, cited passage. I therefore think the article is now ok. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Orangemike: That's a reasonable suggestion. There are two potential problems, however. One is that the hook may be too long if too much further info is added. The other is that the subject article does not contain the suggested additional information, and the separate article about the Prince is not very well referenced. If you're prepared to accept some limited additional material that's included in the latter article without any specific referencing (but hardly controversial), then I would suggest this hook (using the same image):
Past reviewers haven't returned; new reviewer needed to check ALT1 and also to recheck the issues raised by prior reviewers. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahnfrend:, Great work on this article, well sourced, and quite a fascinating article at that. Earwig's copyvio detector says 50% copied, but that was mostly a long quote that was in quotations that was sourced. If possible, can you reword "By 2012 Gusmao had become aware of the bugging and initiated confidential proceedings in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, seeking to have CMATS declared void because Australia had acted in bad faith by spying during the negotiations.", as this is near-identical to the source, probably unintentionally. Let me know when you finish your QPQ and changing that sentence and it should be all set. Wishing the best and you got this! Ornithoptera (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Past reviewers haven't returned; new reviewer needed to check ALT1 and also to recheck the issues raised by prior reviewers. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I have confirmed the details above. This appears ready to move forward. --evrik (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
