A fact from Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay appeared on Wik.ipedia.Pro's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 June 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is part of WikiProject Paraguay, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Paraguay. If you would like to participate, you can improve Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ParaguayWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject ParaguayTemplate:WikiProject ParaguayParaguay articles
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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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.
Overall: Interesting article, good quality and writing! The Earwig results are too high for 3 sources. I understand that most of them are quotes, but there are a bit too many quotes as per MOS:QUOTE and some would be better if rewritten. Some close paraphrases as well. Otherwise all good. -- P 1 9 9✉17:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gobonobo: I see that you rewrote a few sentences, but it didn't bring down the percentages. In fact, Earwig now found 5 sources between 27 and 39% similarity. -- P 1 9 9✉14:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @P199:. I've reworked the article to address close paraphrasing and removed several quotes. At this point, I think Earwig is just picking up the remaining quote and the many proper names. gobonobo+c08:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
for ALT1. Good work. Reviewing the Earwig comparison, I agree that the remaining similarities are related to the remaining quote, some common word combinations, and proper names. -- P 1 9 9✉13:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By submitting your email or phone number, you're giving mschf permission to send you email and/or recurring marketing texts. Data rates may apply. Text stop to cancel, help for help.