Template:Did you know nominations/Drug barons of Colombia

The following discussion 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn from consideration by one of the article creators.

Drug barons of Colombia

(

)

... that by the mid 1990s, the Cali Cartel drug barons (pictured) were estimated by the DEA to control some 80% of the world's cocaine supply and earn an estimated $7 billion a year?

Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Nvvchar (talk), Bonkers The Clown (talk), and Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC).

Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Mahila Atma Raksha Samiti

PumpkinSky talk 00:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I have concerns about both the paraphrasing and the accuracy of this article. Compare for example "after many months of legal wrangling, Pablo had the two arresting officers bribed and the case was dropped. It was here that he began his pattern of dealing with the authorities by either bribing them or killing them" with "After many months of legal wrangling Pablo had the two arresting officers killed and the case was dropped. It was here that he began his pattern of dealing with the authorities by either bribing them or killing them" - the phrasing is nearly identical, and the distinguishing detail is a difference of fact rather than phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, I have addressed the above concerns.--Nvvchar. 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither concern has been addressed. The above statement has been reworked in part to read "after many months of legal wrangling, Pablo the case was dropped as it was rumored that he had bribed the officers who had arrested him". This continues a turn of phrase from the source ("after many months of legal wrangling") as well as the factual difference between article and source (officers bribed vs officers killed). I would also recommend giving the article a good copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've c/e the article. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, that helps. Has someone looked at factual fidelity to sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw mention of this pop on my watchlist from Nikkimaria's talk page, and peeked in since it involves a Spanish-language topic. I do not have time this moment for a thorough review, but on a quick glance I see a number of issues of concern: I will attempt to return to this by today or tomorrow for a thorough review of sources (an article of this nature should be using the highest quality sources-- for now, I do not believe it is, and I will be checking for accurate representation of sources along with reliability). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources I've picked like DEA, BBC etc are fine. If there are any shoddier sources it is because the article began by borrowing text from the existing biographies with new material added so the biographies would have the same problem with sources if this is the case. Remember Sandy, tread carefully...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There are dubious sources in this article, but I am unwatching and will leave this to someone else. Could you please explain on my talk what is meant by your remark to "tread carefully"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Followup on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Medellintraveler.com, Ccelebritynetworth.com and Cinema Blend are probably the worst, and all of those are in the main articles. They should be replaced if possible.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the sources and they mostly seem fine. I replaced some of the above ones. PBS and Orlando Sentinel might initially look dubious but they're fine. If possible though I'd like to replace celebnetworth with Forbes, but I think this is OK to go now and is a decent initial overiew.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

New review needed, which should concentrate on source issues noted above, including reliability of same. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any remaining source issues. I removed them before Sandy even had a chance to identify them.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing this article from consideration at DYK. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn from consideration by one of the article creators. If you change your mind, please post below at any point before the article is formally rejected. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)