- The following discussion 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Goéry Delacôte
edit... that some successful science centres in the United States and Great Britain have been directed by French theoretical physicist Goéry Delacôte?
- ALT1:... that science centres in both the United States and Great Britain have been directed by French theoretical physicist Goéry Delacôte?
- ALT2:... that science educator Goéry Delacôte became interested in theoretical physics, because being moved up two years at school meant he wasn't mature enough to appreciate literature and poetry?
- ALT3:... that science educator Goéry Delacôte returned to France to create more science centres, after leading the Exploratorium in San Francisco and At-Bristol in England?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/20 (Twenty)
Created/expanded by Trevj (talk). Self nom at 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I count 1076 characters of prose text, well short of the bare minimum of 1500. Is any more expansion possible? Also, is it possible to give a more descriptive and less subjective adjective than "successful"? By what metric? Savidan 16:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at this. Very sorry - I did it in rather a rush, so will have a further look shortly. -- Trevj (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've expanded it (based mainly on one interview, but carefully paraphrased and also drawing on other sources) and now get a "readable prose size" of 3533 bytes. I've also added a couple of ALTs. -- Trevj (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC) For info, I've also unsuccessfully searched for free photos of Delacôte. -- Trevj (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at this. Very sorry - I did it in rather a rush, so will have a further look shortly. -- Trevj (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I've struck through the original hook as the ALT1 is just restating that without the contentious word 'successful'. I've tweaked the ALTs for the spelling of centre (he was French and that is the spelling in the article) and I've reworded grade skipping in ALT2 (but kept the internal link) and been more specific about how many years he was moved up. Assuming those minor changes don't disqualify me from carrying out the rest of the review - I'll do that within the next few hours. Mikenorton (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The length, date and sourcing of the article are fine and there are no plagiarism/copyvio concerns (I made one very short passage into a quote, just to be sure). All the ALTs are short enough and are supported by cites and the relevant sources. Of these, I prefer ALT2 as the most interesting (to me). Mikenorton (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that some of the phrasing used in this article might be too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "he wasn't mature enough to appreciate the literature and poetry studied" with "I wasn't mature enough to really appreciate the literature and poetry taught", or "he further developed their already strong exhibit designs for exploring scientific concepts" with "I developed the strengths they already had in designing exhibits to explore scientific concepts". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for having a look. If any of the paraphrasing is too close then I apologise profusely. Coincidentally, I did my first ever bit of copyright investigation on 11 June (shortly after this nomination)... and your comment now makes me realise that I should have increased awareness of the policy and cited examples than when I wrote the above article. I'll be happy to check this over the next couple of days. If this nullifies the nomination, so be it. The speedy expansion I did because I cocked up the initial size count obviously wasn't a good idea. Sorry. -- Trevj (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies for failing to pick those up in my review. I suggest that you handle those by turning them into direct quotes. There should be no problem about the nomination once these and any other such problems that might have missed the net have been addressed. Mikenorton (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
In progress -- Trevj (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies for the continuing delay with this. I decided that the easiest way for me would be to work from paper copies. I have these but haven't yet found the time to finish the comparison I started. It's coming, and I'll then reword the article text if necessary. -- Trevj (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The amendments don't amount to much, but I believe that they address the issues raised. Is this now a valid nomination, please? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Still some closeness here - compare "He was disappointed with the level of English government funding for science centres" with "I'm disappointed with the level of government funding for science centres in England", or "he considered mathematics to be too abstract, and biology to be a less scientific subject at that time" with "mathematics seemed too abstract, and biology wasn't really a scientific subject at that time". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've now used in-text attribution for these, because I don't believe the words are markedly creative. -- Trevj (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, but there are other areas of closeness that do not include such attribution (looking in particular at FN3, but should check other sources for similar instances), and overusing that technique would not be ideal. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Up to now, I've already spent a fair amount of time reviewing the content, but still without arriving at a satisfactory version. If you or someone else could please identify exactly which phrases remain unsuitable, I'll endeavour to address them. An alternative would be a complete rewrite. I guess that time is of the essence for DYK, and unfortunately I'm not sure how much time I'll have available to spend on this article in the immediate future. -- Trevj (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Is the article any better with these changes? -- Trevj (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, with that and my own edits I think we can move forward with this now. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help. Please note that I've made a couple of subsquent minor changes. -- Trevj (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Is the article any better with these changes? -- Trevj (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Up to now, I've already spent a fair amount of time reviewing the content, but still without arriving at a satisfactory version. If you or someone else could please identify exactly which phrases remain unsuitable, I'll endeavour to address them. An alternative would be a complete rewrite. I guess that time is of the essence for DYK, and unfortunately I'm not sure how much time I'll have available to spend on this article in the immediate future. -- Trevj (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, but there are other areas of closeness that do not include such attribution (looking in particular at FN3, but should check other sources for similar instances), and overusing that technique would not be ideal. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've now used in-text attribution for these, because I don't believe the words are markedly creative. -- Trevj (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Still some closeness here - compare "He was disappointed with the level of English government funding for science centres" with "I'm disappointed with the level of government funding for science centres in England", or "he considered mathematics to be too abstract, and biology to be a less scientific subject at that time" with "mathematics seemed too abstract, and biology wasn't really a scientific subject at that time". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- The amendments don't amount to much, but I believe that they address the issues raised. Is this now a valid nomination, please? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies for the continuing delay with this. I decided that the easiest way for me would be to work from paper copies. I have these but haven't yet found the time to finish the comparison I started. It's coming, and I'll then reword the article text if necessary. -- Trevj (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
