Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Sudan

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 Jolly Ω Janner 03:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Corruption in Sudan

(

)

... that corruption in Sudan is aided by Omar al-Bashir's censorship of national media?

ALT1:... that the EU's Busines Anti-Corruption Portal has warned investors to proceed with caution when operating in Sudan due to corruption?
ALT2:... that the increasing congruence between the government and the ruling National Congress party has reportedly been the cause of a rise in corruption in Sudan?
ALT3:... that Sudan promotes a patronage system wherein Islamic contractors are favored for government projects, who then sub-contract to firms connected to the ruling National Congress party?
ALT4:... that Sudanese citizens report that the police are the most corrupt institution in all of Sudan?

Reviewed: Tropical Storm Bret (1993)

5x expanded by DaltonCastle (talk). Self-nominated at 02:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC).

Just to be clear, I will be making more alternatives soon. Also, I will review other DYK pages. I just wanted to make sure I got this nomination up within the seven day limit. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I have added alternatives to nomination. I am currently in the process to review other pages, as per QPQ. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Full review needed now that additional ALT hooks have been provided and QPQ submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found. QPQ done and image properly licensed. Good to go.--Laun chba ller 22:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "A result of these factors is citizens are commonly forced to pay bribes to gain access to basic public services from the government" with "As a result of this combination of factors, citizens commonly face demands for bribes in their dealings with government institutions to access basic public services". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for reviewing. Ive been away for a while and didnt get to fully review this until now. I can address any instances of close paraphrasing in the next few days. Are there any specific examples besides the ones listed above? I know that sometimes when Im writing content for larger articles I have a habit of pulling a lot of quotes to make sure I can finish the expansion within the seven day limit which causes me to then paraphrase some. I dont doubt that sometimes I am a little too close, ha! So if there are specific circumstances let me know. Otherwise I am going to pour over this and improve whatever I find. Thanks again. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone re-evaluate? I have gone through and tried to improve potential instances of close paraphrasing. Would like to keep this nomination alive. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

While it's certainly improved, there are still instances of paraphrasing that is uncomfortably close. For example, compare "relatives of high-level Sudanese government officials own firms that do business with the state. As a rule, these businessmen provide their relatives in government with kickbacks in exchange for government contracts" with "relatives of high government officials often own companies that do business with the government and usually provide their relatives in government with kickbacks in exchange for government business". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Made additional edits. Hope it is good now. DaltonCastle (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not, unfortunately. Compare "The proceeds from this enterprise fill the pockets of the so-called ‘Mafia’ who enact this scheme" with "The proceeds from this enterprise go into the pockets of the so-called ‘Mafia’ who oversee this scheme". (There is an unclosed quotation mark in the previous paragraph, but as this passage is not identical I'm assuming the quote is meant to close earlier). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: made the change. Are there other specific changes that need to be made? I would like to resolve this as well. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely understand, but I really feel that a broader revision is necessary to address the problems here, as there are many instances of wording that is not identical but is very closely paraphrased, particularly from footnote 1. Have you tried using the tips outlined at Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#How_to_write_acceptable_content? I find that they can be very helpful in avoiding issues of this kind. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have made, and will continue to make, several edits to remove instances of close paraphrasing. I would like to keep this nomination alive so any guidance would be appreciated, especially considering that, at this point, I am unsure where further examples of close paraphrasing are. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Background para 1 and 2, Police para 1, Ministry of Finance para 3 and 4, and Treatment of Media para 1 have notable close paraphrasing of FN1 (in some cases identical or near-identical phrasing). I haven't done a comprehensive check of the other sources, so there may be other issues with those. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been a week and a half since Nikkimaria made her comment and no action has been taken by DaltonCastle who has been actively editing Wikipedia during this time at other articles. It's time to reject this nomination.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Reopening nomination per discussion at WT:DYK#Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Sudan. Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is definitely improved from the previous version, but spotchecks still find issues - Corruption in business para 1 vs footnote 2, Sale of public lands vs footnote 16, possibly more. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Done and done. Let me know what more needs to be fixed. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: please look here for a comparison of your text (left) and the source text (right). As a DYK reviewer, I check every source with a 10% confidence rate or higher. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW the solution is not to put everything in quotes, but to rewrite and reorder the text in your own words. Yoninah (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me that tool. Although I've known about that kind of thing before in general, I was ignorant of one specifically for WP articles. Thanks again. Ill make some improvements. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok so I made a number of changes. All but two of the sources are under 10%. The one that is a little high is due to some quotations. Overall, there are few quotes left so I can't predict this is much of an issue. Please let me know where it stands. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)