Template:Did you know nominations/Furgate

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Furgate

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1999 Furgate scandal, described as one of the largest in South Korea, involved influence peddling through gifts of luxury items? Source: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN013119.pdf)
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

• Reviewed: Karl Friedrich Titho

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 09:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC).

• Article new enough and barely long enough. I don't think that the page linked entirely supports source #1. Most sources are not accessible to me (but WP:PAYWALL) so no copyvio or plagiarism check. Hook is interesting, sourced, I wonder if it can be made even peppier, say "...that furs were used as bribes in one of South Korea's largest scandals?". QPQ is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I am not sure what is not supported? I'd be happy to provide a quotation. I don't think ping of furs to Furgate is a good idea, however, it's a bit of a problem as readers may expect to read about furs, and then they get the scandal article instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe this is my experience speaking, but in such a context I think most readers would realize that the bolded fur link does not simply point to any generic fur. The problem with #1 is that much of the lead is sourced to that source which does not support the lead's content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: While I think statements in the lead that are referenced later in article's body don't require duplicate refs in the lead, given this article is very short, I see how this can be tad confusing. I've added a ref to the lead (same one as used for the hook, should be open access). Hope that solves the problem. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• There seems to be some inconsistency about when the scandal happened, according to the text. Did it surface in 1997 or 1999? Anonymous Dissident (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Anonymous Dissident: Error fixed, the correct period would be 1999 to 2000. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)