Template:Did you know nominations/Mani Yadanabon
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 MPJ-DK 02:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mani Yadanabon
- ... that the 18th-century Burmese court treatise Mani Yadanabon has been described as "a repository of historical examples illustrating pragmatic political principles worthy of Machiavelli"?
- Reviewed: Jerome Babe
Created by Hybernator (talk). Self-nominated at 21:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC).
, the article is new (created on 31 July) and long enough. It is really interesting, covering a not universally known subject. Hook fact is correct and it is verified by an inline citation. My concern is that I found an example of close paraphrasing in a sentence referring to a source that can be read online. I suggest that the text should carefully reviewed by the nominator, because most sources cited in the article cannot be read online. My example of close paraphrasing is the third sentence under the first subtitle ("It purports to describe the exemplary advice offered by various ministers to Burmese sovereigns from the late 14th century to the early 18th century"), which is almost identical with the text of the cited work (Lieberman 1983). Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Thanks for the review. I've added quotation marks around that phrase and two other ones. Please take a look again. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
, the issue I raised above was addressed, thank you for it. Sorry, but I am not sure that the using of quotation marks is the best solution in similar cases. I would prefer some further edits (rewording, etc.), but I do not want to decide alone, so I initiate a new review. Borsoka (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough and has been waiting a month for re-review. I found the quotation in the hook via Google books so can verify the hook. The article is neutral and contains a lot of quotations. I did not have access to most of the sources but doubt there are policy issues present in the article now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
