Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Dibb

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 Mifter (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Paul Dibb

(

)

... that Paul Dibb formulated a review of Australia’s defence capabilities known as the Dibb Report?
Source: "Few would dispute that Dibb’s most important public and personal contribution to defence policy was the Dibb Review." - Ball & Lee 2016, p. 38.

Reviewed: William Shuttleworth
Comment: This is not my creation. I am only it's caretaker.

Created by SocieteInternationale (talk) and Janweh64 (talk). Nominated by Janweh64 (talk) at 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC).

Review

Length is fine at over 7,000 characters, article includes citations and is policy-compliant.
Earwig finds copyvio issues and it noted close paraphrasing, especially under the Honour section.
Hook fact is supported by sources and in-line citations, as required.
QPQ done

When the above issues are addressed, then I will review again.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing is a serious issue. It has been three weeks since the above review was posted, and no action has been taken. I have posted to the nominator's talk page, requesting a prompt response here. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Doug Coldwell: Sorry, I got a little busy with other articles. I have simply removed the most offending copyvio. However the rest of the flags are caused by the extremely long job titles and extremely long titles of his reports and published works. There one flag caused by an attributed quote which I believe is fair use. Thank you.— አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: A good start, however a reading of over 30% seems a little high to me. I aim for 10% or less (doesn't always mean I can get that however, because of long titles). Maybe a litle more rewording would get that number under 30%. Suggestion is something like -

from He was the head of the National Assessments Staff (the predecessor to the Office of National Assessments) from 1974 to 1978, the director of the Joint Intelligence Organisation (the predecessor to the Defence Intelligence Organisation) from 1986 to 1988, and the Deputy Secretary for Strategy and Intelligence of the Department of Defence from 1988 to 1991.
to He was general manager of the National Assessments Staff (the predecessor to the Office of National Assessments) from 1974 to 1978. Dibb was an administrator of the Joint Intelligence Organisation (the predecessor to the Defence Intelligence Organisation) from 1986 to 1988, and in a secretarial capacity for Strategy and Intelligence of the Department of Defence from 1988 to 1991. = might bring this 30% number closer to 10%. Long titles are a hard one to work with, however wording like Dibb was recognised... could be reworded somehow and that would lower the 30% number. Ping me again when done. I'll take long titles and fair use quotes in consideration in a re-review.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell:, I played Whac-A-Mole with Earwig for an hour to again lower those percentages as low as they will go. What is left are names of organizations, titles, and names of publications. I am not willing to sacrifice "Deputy Secretary" because secretarial is one not the proper definition of the role and two the title has a significant and notable history. I hope this is enough.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Good To Go. Thanks for the hard work.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)