Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Italy

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) 06:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Corruption in Italy

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that a politician implicated in Italy's largest corruption scandal was permitted to claim his time in the parliament constituted his community service?
  • ALT1:... that Italy's largest corruption scandal resulted in the dissolution of five of the nation's political parties?
  • ALT2:... that the managers of Italy's soccer teams were caught colluding with referees to rig games?
  • ALT3:... that an outside observer has called corruption in Italy beneficial to the nation?
  • ALT4:... that due to corruption, it takes on average six years for Italy to complete major public works, and usually at four times the cost?

• Reviewed: Carine Goren

5x expanded by DaltonCastle (talk). Self-nominated at 04:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC).

• Just my quick impression: ALT2 & ALT4 describe problems that wouldn't be startling to see on a "dirty laundry list" anywhere in the world. ALT0 & ALT1 & ALT3 seem more interesting & more specific to Italy. —Patrug (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• The article was expanded from 759 characters to 15896 characters within seven days of the nomination. It is long enough. The QPQ is done. There do not seem to be copyright violations; Earwig's Copyvio Detector mostly detects quotations. The article is neutral and does not seem to violate WP:BLP. It uses inline citations. I assume good faith for the two sources in Italian. But reference 19 appears to link to a search page and not an article titled "Lex live: Italy". In the sports section, the source cited doesn't seem to verify that "twenty persons implicated in the scandal were ultimately either fined, sent to prison, or banned from the sport". Per Patrug, ALT0, ALT1 and ALT3 are more interesting. These three hooks also seem neutral and do not focus on negative aspects of living persons. I added inline citations to verify them. Gulumeemee (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The Lex Live citation was to a Financial Times piece that is behind a paywall. Nonetheless, I have stricken it since there is an abundance of source and there's no need to complicate it. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I also went ahead and struck the sentence about the twenty people ultimately sentenced. This info is on the main article related to the scandal, but its possible there's some link rot. Anyways, its not a major part of the article. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I struck ALT2 and ALT4. ALT0, ALT1 and ALT3 are good to go. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)