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: promoted by — Maile (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• ... that mining companies Barrick Gold and Banro Corporation filed libel suits against Alain Deneault and the co-authors and publisher of his book Noir Canada?
• ... that mining companies Barrick Gold and Banro Corporation filed libel suits against Alain Deneault for his book's account of alleged human rights abuses in Africa connected to Canadian mining?

Created by InverseHypercube (talk). Self nominated at 23:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

• New enough, and long enough. I haven't reviewed the rest of the article, but the hook is on a libel suit against the subject when it should "not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people."—Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing!

It's interesting that you got the impression that it was a negative aspect. I think of it as a civil liberties issue, since the suit has been widely regarded as a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) to intimidate critics of the industry. Do you have any suggestions on how to modify the hook to de-emphasize the libel aspect? InverseHypercube (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no alternatives come to mind. Feel free to request another opinion on my negative interpretation. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I added a modified version. InverseHypercube (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As the libel suit is against the main subject, I don't see the alt version as any improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• New enough and long enough, but I find that the biography section of the article is not adequately supported by footnotes. However, I can tell that it came from this source because the content is closely paraphrased from that source -- the sourcing and close paraphrasing need to be corrected. Also, I'm bothered by the lack of followup on the outcome of the mining company's 2010 "threatening letter" about the English-language book. It appears from this page that the book was published and is being sold. Can some additional information be added to the article on the fate of this book?

As for the hooks, I think we can write a hook that seems less like an attack on Deneault:

• ALT2 ... that Canadian mining companies sued author Alain Deneault over his book about Canadian mining activities in Africa? --Orlady (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

After realizing that my concerns about sourcing/paraphrasing related to content not added by the nominator, I edited the article to resolve those concerns. QPQ isn't needed. The first hook is verified; the second one isn't (I struck it) because "human rights abuses" aren't discussed as such in the article. I prefer the ALT2 hook. This is good to go as far as I'm concerned, but someone else will need to verify the ALT2 hook that I proposed. --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the edits! For what it's worth, I support ALT2. InverseHypercube (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Article is new enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. ALT2 hook refs verified and cited inline. No QPQ needed. ALT2 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)