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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Serekunda

• ... that because the capital of the Gambia is on a small island, its population has overflowed into nearby Serekunda (pictured)?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dublin Castle scandal, Template:Did you know nominations/A. I. Namm & Son Department Store
• Comment: Alt hooks welcome. I may come up with a more interesting hook as I continue to expand the article.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Going to review this later, the hook already looks interesting! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: I don't see the article as new, needs an explanation. The hook is a book source so AGF. I see multiple un-broad sentences, like about the dictator's rule, which isn't related to the city (only a tiny bit). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheNuggeteer: Article was 5x expanded on August 19. The mentioned events of the dictator's rule took place at specific locations in Serekunda, which I think makes them relevant. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good explanation, changing. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to reopen this nomination to add another article I have expanded. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1: ... that because the capital of the Gambia is on a small island, its population has overflowed into Serekunda (pictured) in the nearby municipality of Kanifing?

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: reviewer needed to review second article, Kanifing, and the new ALT1 hook with both articles included. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Kanifing review

  Article was expanded from 1761 characters/288 words to 8988 characters/1422 words. This is on the border of x5 expansion, and some copyediting may bring this down. There are some paraphrasing concerns. The lead has "Kanifing is a municipality in the Gambia, to the west of Banjul...It includes Serrekunda, the largest urban area in the Gambia", which is very close to "Kanifing, a local government area, lies to the west of Banjul, the capital. It includes Serrekunda, the largest urban area in the country". "It has the largest population of any of the districts in the Gambia" in the lead is very similar to "Kanifing municipality has the largest population of any administrative district in the country" of the same source. "Kanifing is the most densely populated part of the Gambia" in the body is very similar to the same source's "making it the most densely populated area in The Gambia". "In 1991, it became the Kanifing Municipal Council" seems taken from "In 1991, KUDC was given the status of a municipal council, becoming Kanifing Municipal Council (KMC)", "Kanifing and Banjul comprise the Greater Banjul Area" is "Kanifing and the City of Banjul together form the Greater Banjul Area", both also from this source. There may be other areas, I have not checked every place this was cited. Some of these might be fine on their own as basic information, but seeing so many examples demonstrates the paraphrasing is too close. (While I cannot access many of the sources used here, I could access this waste management one, which does not seem closely paraphrased in the same way.) A related aside, the "Senegalese people comprise 92% of these" in the article is wrongly contextualised, the source notes 92% is for all of The Gambia, not just Kanifing. Talib Ahmed Bensouda's political party does not seem to be in the mentioned source.

  I have not re-checked the Serekunda article other than to check the hook. While I am not sure what "overtaking its status" in the body there means, the main point in the hook is supported. I find the hook interesting. A second QPQ was completed. CMD (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Chipmunkdavis: I've made tweaks to the prose to address the paraphrasing issues. I've kept the sentence "Kanifing and Banjul comprise the Greater Banjul Area" since I really don't think there's a more concise phrasing of that, and I don't know how to rephrase "the most densely populated part of the Gambia" while staying faithful to the source. I've checked for close paraphrasing from other sources and I believe I have addressed everything. Also removed the wrong statistic about refugees, thanks for pointing that out.
    As for article length, it has been expanded much more than fivefold since the expansion began. The prose size as of the revision before my edits was 561 B. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right on the expansion, I was calculating one diff off, so my concern about length was mistaken. On the paraphrasing, there is still some rewriting needed. Shifting a few words doesn't remove the text echoing the source in style and structure. Shifting from saying the area has most of the country's coastal resorts and hotels to saying it has most of the country's hotels and coastal resorts does not read as a new piece of writing. "Youth unemployment (those aged 15–35 years) is 6.5%, lower than many districts in the country" should not be copied with a small change to "youth unemployment rate is 6.5%, lower than most of the country". The shifting of the "It includes Serrekunda" sentence did not affect its structure being lifted from the source. The salient information should be extracted from the source, not the sentences or structure. For example, the article currently has the text "...people who are 15 or older...and 254,337 who are unemployed". I've just realised that that figure doesn't match the preceding figures, so please check that, but whatever the figure is, that is a place that information about youth unemployment would naturally fit, say "Of workers between 15 and 35, just 6.5% are unemployed." CMD (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    More tweaks made, though it may be imperfect as I'm multitasking right now. Kept the phrasing "lower than most of the country" since it's more precise than just saying it's "low". I can't think of a better phrasing for the sentence about hotels. Thanks for putting in more effort than most DYK reviewers would. And thanks for pointing out the unemployment statistic; that's the kind of blunder that happens when I've stared at PDFs with tables for a bit too long. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chipmunkdavis: I have gone through the article and sources again and I think there are no more issues with close paraphrasing. Do you think the article meets DYK criteria now? — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the expansion. I'm still uneasy about passing with the structural similarities identified, which have not changed in the edits. I asked at WT:DYK for a second opinion but haven't heard back. In the meantime, would you be willing to request an edit at WP:GOCER? CMD (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Sure, yeah, I think requesting a copyedit is a good idea. I'll do that. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Since the issues were with close paraphrasing and weren't answered at WT:DYK before the request was archived, I'm going to ping Nikkimaria to see whether she thinks the issues have been sufficiently addressed, since she's an expert on this sort of thing. With a two-month maximum nomination duration having become a hard and fast rule at DYK, requesting a copyedit at GOCE is no longer a feasible option at DYK, since such requests take an average of over three months to be completed. At the moment, there are still pending requests from May 2024. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I don't have access to all of the sources, but do see some minor issues among those that I have available. If there is concern about rephrasing while remaining faithful to the source, more use could be made of direct quotation. For example, Since women were banned from regular services in 2003 could be replaced with the quote "Since women were banned from the Markaz in 2003". 02:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

      I have tweaked that sentence on Serekunda. Nikkimaria, would you be able to take a quick look at the Kanifing article? CMD (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      No major issues in the sources I can access. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks very much. I think third-party approval for that counts as evaluating my copyedits, the other criteria I note as good to go so approving the hook per my review of the Kanifing page. CMD (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]