Talk:Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay

A fact from Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 June 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the UN Human Rights Committee recognized a correlation between the right to life and protection of the environment in Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay.

Wikipedia

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. 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 rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: United Nations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. 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 relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations (assessed as Mid-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Toxicology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Paraguay Mid‑importance

	Paraguay portal 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.ParaguayWikipedia:WikiProject ParaguayTemplate:WikiProject ParaguayParaguay articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 BorgQueen (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that pesticide poisoning experienced by Paraguayan farmers was found to violate their right to life? Source: "...the UN Human Rights Committee issued a damming resolution, concluding that the Paraguayan government's inadequate response to the illegal soy fumigations violated a series of fundamental human rights, including the right to life, the right to home and family, and the right to remedy from harm."
- ALT1: ... that the UN Human Rights Committee recognized a correlation between the right to life and protection of the environment in Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay? Source: "In its August 2019 decision in Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay , the Human Rights Committee recognised, for the first time, the existence of a connection between environmental protection and the right to life with dignity."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Vampyrellida

Created by Gobonobo (talk). Self-nominated at 22:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Portillo Cáceres v Paraguay; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

This review is for ALT1 which is more compelling IMO.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - A bit high. 39% for https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342662110, 34% for https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/toxic-takeaways/, and 27% for https://ijrcenter.org/2019/08/22/un-human-rights-committee-recognizes-environmental-harm-as-rights-violation/

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

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 ⁺ ^c 08:16, 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]