Talk:Time, Love, Memory

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Seymour Benzer with a big fruit fly

• ... that the book called Time, Love, Memory is about biologist Seymour Benzer (pictured) and his studies of time, love and memory in fruit flies? Source: [1]
  • ALT1: ... that the book called Time, Love, Memory tells how time, love, and memory became associated with specific fly genes? Source: [2]

Created by Artem.G (talk). Self-nominated at 18:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC).

• Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• . Nice article. Article is new enough (created 9 Nov), long enough (> 4,000 bytes of narrative text), and appears to meet core policies and guidelines, including neutrality and use of inline citations. The Earwig tool shows a high probability of plagiarism, but this is due to the inclusion of long quotes. The quotes are properly attributed but may be a bit long per WP:LONGQUOTE or WP:OVERQUOTING. I think the quotes are generally good but would appreciate the nominator/creator checking the quotes to see if they can be shortened or paraphrased to avoid issues with these guidelines.

The hook is short enough, interesting, neutral, and supported by an in-line citation to a reliable source. QPQ exempt as this will be the nominator's third DYK. The photo is very nice and has "Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license." Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I will check and try to remove excessive quote, will ping you when done. Artem.G (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ezlev: Actually, I've re-read the article, and I think that quotes are quite ok: they are valuable part of the article, as they show how the book was recepted and for what. Is it a real problem to keep the quotes? Everything is appropriately tagged and referenced, so it's not copyvio. Artem.G (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe the intended ping here was to Cbl62, the reviewer. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, sorry for that :) @Cbl62: please look at my comment above, what do you think? Artem.G (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I may not be the best judge of what qualifies as excessive under WP:LONGQUOTE or WP:OVERQUOTING. In my own writing, I am fond of using quotes, and in my early days on Wikipedia I was often chided for excessive use of lengthy quotes. I would like to get a second opinion on this point and will post something on the Talk page to see if anyone else can weigh in on this point. Once that issue is resolved, the hook is good to go. Cbl62 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• weighing in by request from wt:dyk As a frequent quoting fan myself, I would say that I am still concerned about the last three paragraphs (including the blockquote) of the "plot" (should be synopsis) section, as well as the first two paragraphs of the reception section. Quoting shouldn't be a replacement for prose, and for saying things in Wikipedia's voice; quotes are there to supplement. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, I'm here from WT:DYK. By word count, more than 50% of the article is quoted material. That, to me, seems excessive and I agree that much of it would be better paraphrased. This is not so much a copyright issue as a non-free content issue. For example, there's no real benefit to quoting whole sentences like After one day at the course, Benzer says he became induced, transformed, determined, and committed to be a biologist. as opposed to summarizing that in original prose, which would be the "free equivalent" part of WP:NFCCP #1. Regarding the reception section, WP:RECEPTION has some helpful advice for integrating quotes and placing them in context, rather than just having a "X said this long quote, Y said this long quote, Z said this long quote" layout. Hope that helps. DanCherek (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @DanCherek:, @Theleekycauldron:, @Cbl62: thanks for opinions and links to policies, I will try to rewrite the text and use fewer quotes. Once done, I'll ping Cbl62, the reviewer. Artem.G (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Artem. As I mentioned, I used to have the same issue in my Wikipedia writing. Cbl62 (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cbl62: I tried to copyedit the article, and now hopefully it doesn't look like just a bunch of quotes. I still use some, but I think the article do looks better now. Artem.G (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

. Some good progress on trimming the quotes. Could probably use a bit more but it is sufficient now IMO to pass. Cbl62 (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Modified ALT1 to T:DYK/P7 without image

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Time, Love, Memory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 17:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Maybe lower case for "Phage group".
  • done

• I think Schrodinger's book needs to be set in its period, its time-context, with a word or two. You might say "... which described the nature of genes as known in the 1940s as..." or something of that kind.
  • added

• "When this field of study became more popular, Benzer abandoned it and started to work on a completely new area.[1]" The source makes it clear that this was a characteristically self-effacing action on Benzer's part, so you are authorized to say that; in a way, it's the point of the whole article, isn't it.
  • added

• The (fascinating) Reception section is a key part of this article. It should be represented by a short summary paragraph in the lead section.
  • added some, let me know if you think it's not enough

• Perhaps the See also item would be best annotated here, so readers can see why you've chosen to pick that article out. Just a dash – and a few words will be enough.
  • added

• When you wikilink or italicise The New York Times, please include the word "The" in the formatting (occurs twice).
  • done

• Jennings's review needs to be given a date (1999) visible in the text as its "no, not yet, and a tentative yes" is time-sensitive.
  • added

• "The book won National Book Critics Circle Award " - please insert "the" before "National". (We non-Americans might appreciate the word "American" in there too.)
  • done

• I'm a bit iffy about using Kirkus Reviews, as they're generally paid-for, but if you want to keep it, could you provide the author (Jonathan Weiner) and the date (May 1, 1999).
  • I would keep it, as it's only one sentence that just adds a bit to the Reception section.

• That's about it from me, an interesting article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for the review! Artem.G (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • • Good work, it's a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)