Template:Did you know nominations/Philippines v. China
- 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: promoted by Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Philippines v. China[edit]
... that the Philippines filed an arbitration case against China over the nine-dotted line claim (map pictured)?
Created/expanded by Hariboneagle927 (talk). Nominated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk) at 21:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC).
At present, the article has only 555 characters of article text (prose). Given that it was lasted edited over 5 days ago, it would need to be expanded to about 2775 characters of prose for DYK eligibility. Chris857 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- It has been expanded to 3089 characters.--Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Full review needed now that article has been expanded. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Article is new enough, long enough, adequately referenced. No QPQ needed. However, there are problems with close paraphrasing and sourcing.
- Material cannot be quoted verbatim from the source; you must rewrite in your own words. Note these close paraphrasing issues:
- BBC article says: Beijing has said its right to the area come from 2,000 years of history where the Paracel and Spratly island chains were regarded as integral parts of the Chinese nation.
- Your article says: Beijing has said its right to the area comes from 2,000 years of history in which the Paracel and Spratly island chains were regarded as integral parts of the Chinese nation.
- BBC article says: The other major claimant in the area is the Philippines, which invokes its geographical proximity to the Spratly Islands as the main basis of its claim for part of the grouping.
- Your article says: The other major claimant in the area is the Philippines, which invokes its geographical proximity to the Spratly Islands as the main basis of its claim for part of the grouping.
- I was unable to find some of the material in the citations you provided. The first and fifth paragraphs under Background are sourced to the BBC, but the BBC article says nothing about what's in these paragraphs. I removed the citation and added "citation needed" tags. Under Related Claims, I don't see any of this information in the one-page UN document which has been cited.
- After you deal with these issues, I wonder if you can come up with a juicier hook?
- Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1... that the Philippines is outraged by China's use of nine dotted lines (lines pictured)?
Thanks for pinch-hitting, Esemono. There is still a "citation needed" tag at the end of the Background section, and I still don't see the material cited in the source under Related Claims. Perhaps there's a different URL for the full document? The ALT hook is much better, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- How about now?
- "Meanwhile, Taiwan took control of the largest island." Is backed up by this quote: "On 08 June 1956 Taiwan sent troops to occupy Thai Binh Island (Itu Aba - Peace Island), the largest island in the Spratlys"
- "Vietnam began to occupy the westernmost islands claiming that it has ruled them since the 17th century." is backed up by:Vietnam says ... it has actively ruled over both the Paracels and the Spratlys since the 17th Century - and has the documents to prove it."
- "Filipinos ... also formalized its claims stating that it owns the islands through geographic proximity, particularly because much of the islands lay within the continental shelf of the country." is backed up by this quote: " the islands were part of Palawan Province by virtue of their presence on the continental margin of the archipelago. "
- Yes, I see those three citations in the source material. But I don't see any of the material under Related Claims in Footnote 10, which is the only citation for that paragraph. I clicked on Executive Summary in that link, and didn't see it there, either. Yoninah (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Added additional citation summarizing the paragraph. --Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)\
