Template:Did you know nominations/Caerthillian to Kennack

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Orlady (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Caerthillian to Kennack

(

)

... that cliffs on the Lizard Peninsula in Cornwall, UK are a breeding site for the rare Cornish Chough (pictured)?

Reviewed: Tupolev ANT-41

Created/expanded by Zangar (talk). Self nom at 22:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

All good. Refs, date, length, etc. check out.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want the image to be used in DYK, it will have to be added to the article. --Orlady (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Image has been added to the article, thanks for pointing that out. Although if the hook would be better used without the image, that's no problem. Zangar (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing concerns. Example: "the nationally scarce galingale (Cyperus longus), yellow-vetch (Vicia lutea) and bird’s-foot clover (Trifolium ornithopodioides) can be found in a disused serpentinite quarry at Church Cove" vs "A disused serpentinite quarry at Church Cove supports the nationally scarce galingale Cyperus longus, bird's-foot clover Trifolium ornithopodioides and yellow-vetch Vicia lutea". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No problems, I hope to work this out. I've gone through and relisted the flora in alphabetical order, different from the original source. I hope this now complies with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#How to write acceptable content. Basically I've added inline citations in accordance with the sourcing guideline and now relisted the information in an order different to which it was presented. Unfortunately due to the fact that this is an article about an abstract area of an SSSI there is only the one main source regarding the flora, therefore we can't fulfil the "Information has been gathered from several sources" criteria any further. But I hope all other criteria has been fulfilled now. But any further advice is welcomed. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The only problem I see with it is the "nationally scarce" wording, otherwise the rest can not be worded in any other way without making it factually inaccurate.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Orlady has fixed this now. Zangar (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nationally scarce" is an official designation; it should not be construed as a plagiarized bit of wording. Adding tickmark to clarify that this seems to be good to go now. --Orlady (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the part that concerned me - "a disused serpentinite quarry at Church Cove" is directly from the source. Other examples include "one of only two populations of four-leaved allseed (Polycarpon tetraphyllum) on the British mainland" vs "one of only two populations of this rare annual on the British mainland" and "The only cliff woodland of the Lizard is at the Devil’s Frying Pan" vs "At the Devil's Frying Pan the only cliff woodland on the Lizard occurs". Material based on FN 3 needs further rewording. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

How would you propose changing "disused serpentinite quarry"? This is a specific and somewhat technical term with specific meaning; changing it without substantial additional information about the quarry is likely to distort the facts. Serpentinite is a type of rock whose properties may determine what kinds of flora are present. Would you prefer to "dumb down" the article by being nonspecific about the the type of rock acquired from the quarry? Or would you change "disused serpentinite quarry" to "an area where a kind of rock described as serpentinite was cut out of the ground some time in the past"? --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"a defunct Church Cove–area serpentinite mine", with appropriate reformulation of the surrounding points, would be one possibility. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also wondering how exactly you would rephrase those without losing the salient points of the source. Perhaps give us an example of how you would tackle "Nearby, a disjunct population of the RDB (*) plant four-leaved allseed Polycarpon tetraphyllum exists, one of only two populations of this rare annual on the British mainland."? Looking at the source, this article really is an acceptable summarization. Just because the words used in some sentences are exactly the same doesn't mean it is violating copyright. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When is close paraphrase permitted? specifically includes the reason "When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing". -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not violating copyright, but it is close paraphrasing - there's a difference. A rather easy reformulation for that example would be "This SSSI is one of just two locations in mainland Britain where Polycarpon tetraphyllum, an allseed with four leaves, grows." I'm sure you could think of other potential phrasings. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

See... the problem with that is that reformulation is actually just as close as the original wording. The only thing added is the SSSI bit. Furthermore you actually significantly altered one detail already - "four-leaved allseed" is a discrete technical common name. Separating "four-leaved" from "allseed" is like rephrasing "The Monkey-eating Eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi) is endemic to the Philippines" to "The eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi that eats monkeys is found only in the Philippines". They don't mean the same thing anymore. But whatever, heh, we're getting sidetracked already. User:Zangar has rephrased the sentences somewhat, are they acceptable enough now?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've reworded the allseed part and expanded the Devil's Frying Pan section, but as User:Orlady says, you can't really reword the Church Cove part as you would lose the technical information. And you can't rearrange it like Nikkimaria says, because Church Cove is a place, eg proper noun, not an object, so is not "a" or "defunct". Zangar (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[EC] Unfortunately, one of Zangar's edits has resulted in a serious distortion similar to that "eagle that eats monkeys" example. His addition of the information that Devil's Frying Pan is an old collapsed sea cave resulted in: "The only cliff woodland of the Lizard Peninsula is at the Devil’s Frying Pan, an old collapsed sea cave, which contains Cornish Elm, Dutch Elm and an intermediate variety of elm." The elms are not actually in the "old collapsed sea cave," which the new source says "is filled with water at high tide". The source that told about the elms indicated that they apparently sprouted from plantings at an old farmstead; there's no indication that they grow out of the sea cave (elms don't grow in tide pools). As I read it, the description of the elms that refers to them being a "Devil's Frying Pan" is a reference to an upland location along the coast path that is adjacent to the sea cave.

This article cites a modern source that is tightly written (not a piece of Victorian writing full of unnecessary commentary) and uses scientific terms, which have a precise meaning, together with very specific geographic references, which also have a very specific meaning. The continuing demand that Wikipedia contributors should creatively rewrite the article with different terminology is a demand to destroy the verifiable meaning in the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Good spot, this is where trying to rewrite things plays havoc with the technical meaning. I'll reword it to "...is in the locality of Devil’s Frying Pan, an old collapsed sea cave, which contains...". How does that sound now? Zangar (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've split it into 2 separate sentences. Zangar (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's good enough. It raises the question of "is the woodland solely composed of elms?" But that question is not answered in the source either, though it hints that it is so. And before it's raised, "cliff woodland" (or cliff woods, cliff forests) is also an ecological term for woodlands that grow under the shelter of cliffs, ravines, and gullies.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)