Template:Did you know nominations/Infighting in Los Zetas

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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn

Infighting in Los Zetas

(

)

... that Los Zetas, Mexico's most violent criminal organization, is reportedly suffering from an internal feud between its two top leaders?

Created/expanded by ComputerJA (talk). Self nom at 20:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New: Yup. Length: Very sufficient. Policy: Not so good. Compare "The relative strength of Treviño Morales, however, does not assure that he'll emerge victorious (or even strengthen) by the internal strife. If anything, the leader who is victorious will be heading a weakened organization" from the article to "Treviño’s relative strength doesn’t assure that he’ll emerge victorious or (even less likely) strengthened by the internal strife. Indeed, the reports of internal decay make it likely that whatever the result of the recent tensions, the victorious capo will be heading a weaker organization." from the source. This is close paraphrasing. Computer JA, please go through the article and rewrite this passage and any other passage of comparable similarity to the source material. Abyssal (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Icon based on the above close paraphrasing issues found. When they have been addressed, please be sure to post here so the article can be reviewed again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry about it. I have some trouble paraphrasing information. ComputerJA (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Why had this nomination disappeared since there was never a verdict on whether or not it was going to be passed? Abyssal (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. It looks like someone deleted the date and its templates from the nominations page before this last hook had been processed: I imagine it was a mistake. I've just restored it; can you continue with the review? There was one edit, done an hour before ComputerJA's "will do" post, though it does address the one specific passage you quote. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I finish it early next week? I've got a lot going on right now, but I'd be glad to get back to this (which is why I came back here anyway). Abyssal (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. We don't exactly have reviewers beating down the doors to grab the older nominations. I think settling it within a week of the problem being discovered is perfectly fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I just did some copyediting to fix some of the close-paraphrasing. After a while, I kinda lose my concentration, so I might need a second eye. Sorry about it. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It still needs work. The article should accurately reflect the facts given in the source, but should not copy creative expression. See this duplication check for a comparison to the first English-language source. "Capacity for betrayal" is, I think, a creative expression regardless of the exact wording. Or this comparison which turns up "in a matter of minutes 52 were killed" vs. "in a matter of minutes 52 civilians were killed". Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: ComputerJA has just been notified of issues, and is on wikibreak through November 19, so there won't be a response until next week. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Further copy-editing work has been carried out, and checks now don't reveal any evidence of significant close-paraphrasing: duplication detector hits are limited to three or four word phrases, most of which couldn't really be phrased in any other way without sounding uncomfortable. Length and date both check out fine, and the hook is appropriately referenced inline. Good to go. Harrias ^talk 11:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Current FNs 28 and 30 (possibly others) still seem quite close in phrasing with the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what FNs mean. And not sure where exactly I need to copyedit. Cheers, ComputerJA (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

FN means reference number, so it's the text supported by references 28 and 30. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What about now? I went over the sources and couldn't find any obvious close paraphrasing. Thanks. ComputerJA (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Still some problems here, unfortunately. Compare for example "had been told by his superiors to keep the body count low...he did not listen to the warnings. Subsequently, he was probably turned in by his own men. This proved that Los Zetas was a fragmented group where local leaders were taking their own decisions" with "may have been warned to keep the body count low by his superiors. He did not heed their warning. Subsequently, he was probably turned in to authorities by those same superiors...fragmented groups like the Zetas whose leaders take their own decisions". There are several instances where although superficial changes have been made, the structure remains identical - for example, compare "This massacre was the sixth time in the past months following the attack that assailants had dumped fourteen bodies in Mexico, suggesting that the number 14 is a secret code among the cartels" with "The attack is the fifth time assailants have dumped 14 corpses in Mexico in recent months, signaling the number may be some sort of code for drug traffickers". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time to indicate the areas where the article needs improvement. I have addressed your concerns, although I've been a bit worried that I may sometimes change the meaning of the phrase (sometimes I feel going too far away from the actual wording makes the sentence lose it's meaning, although that shouldn't be an excuse for close-phrasing). Thanks. ComputerJA (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it can definitely be a bit of a tightrope at times. There are a few dead links which are making further checks difficult (12 and 32, maybe others), but on the whole I'm still seeing significant structural similarities: "Personality-wise, Treviño Morales and Lazcano were opposing figures" vs "Personality-wise, Treviño Morales and Lazcano couldn't be more different", "Guatemala increased its security measures in seven of its provinces on September 2012 in order to prepare for a possible violent spillover from the infighting" vs "Guatemala has increased security in seven provinces to prepare for violent spillover from the rift", "And since a large portion of these gainings are attained at a local level and not from the top echelons and international sources, it is likely that the local Zeta cells are acknowledging that the top leaders are pocketing the money so easily" vs "And since a large portion of the Zetas' revenue streams come from the bottom and local sources, rather than the top and international sources, this makes it more likely that local Zetas cells see how these businesses work and how much money is being pocketed by this hard work". Given these types of problems, I would strongly recommend finding a third-party reader to help you with paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No changes in a week — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I had placed a DYKproblem template on ComputerJA's talk page yesterday, in case Nikkimaria's comments of December 15 had been missed. It seems that ComputerJA was under the impression that a third party would be along shortly and all was waiting on that appearance, though I believe Nikkimaria was clear about who was responsible for finding the third party. At any rate, ComputerJA has just left on holiday, and I have no idea for how long. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Dropping nomination. I'll be out for most of the week, so it's not fair to keep this nomination pending. Thanks for the advice. I'll place the article on the WP:COPYEDITORS to address the problems pointed on here. ComputerJA (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)