Talk:Epsom College in Malaysia

Did you know nomination

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) 06:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Fernandes in 2011

• ... that Epsom College in Malaysia was the brainchild of Tony Fernandes (pictured)?
  
• ALTOa ... that Epsom College in Malaysia has been called the brainchild of Tony Fernandes (pictured)?
  Source: "Bringing a British Dimension to Malaysia's Education System", expatgo.com, 13 June 2012
  • ALT1:... that Boris Johnson and Tony Fernandes (pictured) were at the opening ceremony of Epsom College in Malaysia in 2014?
    Source: Heidi Salmons, Epsom College’s first overseas campus opens its doors, hmc.org.uk, 7 December 2014

• Reviewed: Shanti Stupa, Delhi
• Comment: First nominated on 26 December here

Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 20:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

• The overall article is new enough and long enough. Regarding neutrality, the first paragraph of Origins feels unencyclopaedic in tone. The Scholarships sentence on a pupil being offered scholarships also feels out of place. On citations, I am wary of expatgo.com, and would prefer to hook from another source. On hooks, ALT0 is currently lacking, but I can see it working with a bit of expansion. ALT1 is hooky if you know who the two individuals are, but would not be otherwise. The sources seem to abbreviate it to ECiM not ECM. CMD (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis: “Regarding neutrality, the first paragraph of Origins feels unencyclopaedic in tone.” It has two sentences. The first of those is strictly factual and seems to me to give the critical fact in the section. The second is about the motivation of Fernandes, based on the source. If there is anything there you find not neutrally written, do please say exactly what it is, and I’ll see how I can improve it. “The Scholarships sentence on a pupil being offered scholarships also feels out of place.” It is an achievement of the school as well as the pupil. Where would you prefer to put that? “On citations, I am wary of expatgo.com...” Expatgo is a publisher in Kuala Lumpur which has been publishing Expat magazine there since 1996, now employing about twenty journalists and editors. Do please say what your objection to it is. “On hooks, ALT0 is currently lacking, but I can see it working with a bit of expansion.” What is it lacking, please, and what would you want to add to it? “ALT1 is hooky if you know who the two individuals are, but would not be otherwise.” Most DYK hooks are about people and topics the world has never heard of, and there is no DYK rule that hooks can only mention famous people. But have you really not heard of Boris Johnson? “The sources seem to abbreviate it to ECiM not ECM”. The school, yes, but not the ECM Libra Foundation, which is not the same thing, see ecmlibrafoundation.com. Moonraker (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Strictly factual text can be unencyclopaedic in tone, and what is not neutral is the tone of those sentences. They're very promotional, perhaps magazine-like. The scholarships information is also promotionally written, is it needed on the page? Have the expatgo journalists done journalism elsewhere? What is the reputation of the magazine, and/or its credentials? Both hooks are short and rely on name recognition. The source used says "ECiM Libra Foundation co-founder Dato’ Lim Kian Onn...". CMD (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis You say Strictly factual text can be unencyclopaedic in tone, and what is not neutral is the tone of those sentences. They're very promotional, perhaps magazine-like. You are entitled to your personal opinion, but in this context please say which element(s) you object to and what conflicts you see with a policy on tone and/or neutrality. The scholarships information is also promotionally written... Again, this is your personal opinion. I have not the slightest interest in promoting anything, the text is simply reflecting the contents of the best source available. ...is it needed on the page? Yes, some information on scholarships is clearly needed for a fee-paying school which can accept non-fee-paying students. Leaving that out would seriously affect the neutrality of the page. Have the expatgo journalists done journalism elsewhere? I have not the slightest idea. What is the reputation of the magazine, and/or its credentials? I can find nothing which casts any doubt on its good reputation. If you want to discredit it, that is surely up to you. Both hooks are short... They are a good length. There is a DYK limit on the length of hooks, but not on shortness. ...and rely on name recognition. I do not agree at all, and even if they did there would be no rule against that. The source used says "ECiM Libra Foundation co-founder Dato’ Lim Kian Onn...". So it does. Clearly both are used, life is like that, not neat and tidy. I have edited “ECM” to “ECiM”. Moonraker (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

As a sample element, "the brainchild of Tony Fernandes" is a positive spin lifted directly from the source used. The next sentence is similar, and I can't see what information it really adds to the first sentence. On scholarships, it is a common practice for fee-taking international schools in Southeast Asia to provide scholarships to local students, and so one instance feels unremarkable. CMD (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis As a sample element, "the brainchild of Tony Fernandes" is a positive spin lifted directly from the source used. You can’t have it both ways, either it is “lifted directly” or else it is “positive spin”. It is indeed lifted directly and is offered as the main hook, which you haven’t objected to, except to claim without any policy support that it isn’t long enough. The next sentence is similar, and I can't see what information it really adds to the first sentence. Not the least bit similar, but to humour you I have taken it out. On scholarships, it is a common practice for fee-taking international schools in Southeast Asia to provide scholarships to local students... It is indeed, but not universal, and the information is needed. ... and so one instance feels unremarkable. There is no policy which insists on everything in an article being remarkable. It has not struck you that 100 per cent scholarships are very unusual, but no matter. I have to say, I am not finding you constructive. If you are feeling so negative, why don’t you start an AfD to try to get the page deleted? Moonraker (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand that both ways comparison, if you're suggesting magazines cannot spin things positively I will have to disagree. The relevant hook policy is 2.1, interesting to a broad audience. A hook lifted directly from a source also seems an issue for Article 3.3 though, on close paraphrasing. As for deletion, I don't see where the notability of the page has been called into question. Is there an issue there? CMD (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis I thought you were trying to say it was “positive spin” by me. If you are saying it is “positive spin” by the magazine, I am completely at a loss to see what you mean. The word “brainchild” is simply an Anglo-Saxon form of “conception”. The magazine is saying Fernandes conceived the school in his mind. Other sources say he put a lot of money into it. Where on earth is the “spin” in that, what is being “spun”, and in what way is it too “positive”? You say the relevant policy is interesting to a broad audience, are you now saying that that hook is not interesting enough? If you are, you did not say it to begin with, you had other feeble objections then. ...an issue for Article 3.3 though, on close paraphrasing: no, “the brainchild of Tony Fernandes” is not paraphrased at all, it is a quotation. I am adding ALT0a to make that clearer. Looking over all of the above, you are clutching at a whole series of straws to find reasons to oppose the nomination, and looking for new ones when your first ideas do not hold water. Moonraker (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The initial feeble straws remain the current feeble straws, although some have been dealt with and the copyright issue is new. There is no general preference for opposing nominations. If quotations are used they should be presented as quotations per WP:NFCCP, although the reliance on name recognition remains. On the topic of spin, the magazine is written in WP:NEWSSTYLE, and the article should not imitate that. On another initial comment, reading into the various sources in the scholarship section, they actually discuss the same scholarships, and so I am happy to c/e myself from the sources to maintain the information you feel needs mentioning. CMD (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, I am glad you agree your objections are feeble. If you mean quotation marks should be added, you could have said that a long time ago and didn’t. I do not see any need but have added them as it is such a trivial point. It is quite normal for magazine articles to be written in NEWSSTYLE, and the article plainly does not "imitate" that, that is just subjective rubbish plucked out of the air. I do not understand your last sentence. You seem to be here only to play games, and I suggest you should bow out. Moonraker (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The article copied the magazine almost word for word. That is beyond imitation. The objections remain, however you may feel about them. CMD (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, that’s plainly not so. The article has two short quotations from the Expatgo article, which were there when you made your first comments, and you didn’t object to them. There is no “imitation” of NEWSSTYLE or anything else. Your nit-picking is the most extreme I have seen from a DYK reviewer in ten years, and that is what remains. When one nit-pick fails to hold water, you look for another. Moonraker (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As I have already stated, aside from the issue of lifting some text from the source the other items were all mentioned in my initial response. CMD (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, that expression “lifting some text from the source” is a weird turn of phrase to mean “quotation”, and it is helpful in showing just how hostile you are to something here, I don’t know what. At least you accept that it is a new nit-pick you have added. I see no point in repeating anything said above. If you are not going to bow out, we now need an experienced DYK contributor to look over the thread. Perhaps BlueMoonset can spare the time for it? Moonraker (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Narutolovehinata5, the situation does not appear to have changed. CMD (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that it appears that this nomination has reached a deadlock and the nominator and reviewer cannot come to an agreement, I would suggest that a new reviewer take a look here. If the issues remain unaddressed within a reasonable time frame the nomination may need to be closed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blimey! Basic points such as length already covered & some of the review points now dealt with. Others remain, & most of the sources read like PR people dictating to journalists, but the school only opened last year. I think all 3 hooks pass, but ALT1 is probably best. Really the lead is much too short & the whole thing should be merged into say 4 sections. But I'll call it GTG. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. Just a few concerns about this nomination. ALT0 and ALT0a are derived from an ExpatGo article, and there's note at the bottom of that article indicating that it's a press release from Epsom College. Therefore, it likely counts as a primary (WP:PRIMARY) and non-independent (WP:NIS) source. ALT1 is sourced to an HMC blog post and an Epsom College press release, both of which I would consider primary and non-independent for similar reasons. Edge3 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Edge3, on Expatgo, I do not see what you see, except that there are contact details for the school. The article may or may not be based on a press release, but I imagine it was kicked off by one. Expatgo has journalists and editors and is a reliable source. I agree that oeclub.org is a primary source. You could call HMC a kind of trade association, but it is reliable on facts. I have checked out HMC and Heidi Salmons, and she was its Communications Manager at the time this was posted. If we were talking about notability, some of these sources could not be counted towards that, but even a primary source can be relied on to cite facts. Moonraker (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm approving this again. There is no guideline or policy that states that primary sources cannot be used to cite facts, including the hook. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)