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: rejected by BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient original prose to qualify for DYK; hook also didn't have required bold link.

Passive treatment system

• ... that you can build a swamp to fix a polluted river?

Created by Glane23 ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC).

• Article is new, longer than the minimum requirement, nominated within the 7-day limit and meets Wikipedia core policies. It is neutral and has in-line citations. The hook has less than 200 characters, is neutral and does not focus on negative aspects of living people. I am concerned that the hook is misleading, as currently written. First, not all wetlands are swamps (see Wiki article Swamps). Second, the new article specifically addresses removing metals from acid mine drainage. Third, I see no citation for a source that supports the current hook. Finally, the copyvio tool accepted by Wikipedia shows a high probability of copy violations (>82%). In my opinion the article needs some heavy editing before the DYK nomination can be approved.

Bruin2 ( talk) 04:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have edited the comment above to remove an improperly formatted preamble. The article is a flagrant copyright violation of its main source. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing with the delete !vote for the DYK, but since Cwmhiraeth brought it up, please note that it is not a copyright violation to use verbatim language from a public domain source, in this case a publication of the United States Government. The source is given and the article is additionally flagged that it incorporates public domain material from documents or websites of the United States Government. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I erroneously hit the wrong symbol last night. I didn't realize it until I saw the comment by User Cwmhiraeth. My assessment is a definite No on the present nomination. Bruin2 ( talk) 18:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well maybe I was wrong to state that the article is a copyright violation under those circumstances. However, I was struck by its US bias, understandable from your explanation, and will leave others to decide whether it qualifies for DYK. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this article is not eligible for DYK (per Rule 2b). The majority of the text is copied from this public domain source and there is not enough original prose to meet the 1,500 character minimum limit. Fuebaey ( talk) 19:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Not a problem. Let's shut this puppy down. Thanks, all. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)