- 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 Allen3 talk 15:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hartland Moor
edit- ...
that Hartland Moor in Dorset has a unique Y-shaped drainage system that allows both acidic and alkaline plants to thrive?
- Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Mahmoud Badr
- Comment: Hook citation is [3].
Created by MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk). Self nominated at 21:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC).
At 1441 prose characters, this is slightly too short, under the DYK criteria. I also have concerns about close paraphrasing ("a unique Y-shaped drainage system allows both acid and alkaline-loving plants to thrive" vs. "a unique Y-shaped drainage system, running east to west, which allows both acidic and alkaline plants to thrive", for instance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stemonitis (talk • contribs) 07:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean close paraphrasing of the hook? Expanded to 1687B "readable prose size". Your alternative is fine then:
- ALT1: ... that Hartland Moor in Dorset has a unique Y-shaped drainage system, running east to west, which allows both acidic and alkaline plants to thrive? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, no, I meant close paraphrasing of the article's sources in the article itself. That example, for instance, doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that could not be expressed equally well in another way. There are also other examples, suggesting that the whole article may need to be rephrased. ("In 1805, the first railway in Dorset, the Middlebere Plateway, was built across Hartland Moor to transport ball clay from Corfe Castle to Poole Harbour." vs. "The Middlebere Plateway was [...] built across Hartland Moor in 1805 to transport ball clay from workings near Corfe Castle to Poole Harbour.) Adding or removing parenthetical phrases doesn't really count as re-writing in one's own words. Feel free to seek a second opinion, but I don't think I can promote this article as it stands. (The length of the article is fine, now, though.) --Stemonitis (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have reworded the second statement you cite as problematic. With respect, if this is not sufficient then I would like to seek a second opinion—per WP:LIMITED, there is a limited way of stating some simple statements of fact. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the limitations, I agree with Stemonitis that some of the phrasing is quite close here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I do not see a significant problem with the non-PDF sources. Non-trivial dup detector matches are
- "on the south side of poole harbour" – Seems like a simple statement of fact with no element of creative expression. I see no better way to phrase it.
- "site of special scientific interest" – Standard jargon. A paraphrase would not be appropriate
- "owned by the national trust" – Could perhaps be swapped to "the National Trust owns ...", but I do not see that making much difference.
- "one of the largest areas of lowland heath and mire in" – "Lowland heath and mire" is standard jargon and should not be changed. The phrase could perhaps be swapped to something like "an expanse of lowland heath and mire that is one of the most extensive in..."
- A simple factual description is bound to have similarities to the sources. The goal is to eliminate substantial similarity in creative expression, as described in WP:Close paraphrasing, and I do not see that here. Dup detector is not working for the pdf source, at least not for me, and I am running short of time. Perhaps someone else can find specific cases and suggestions for improvement with the pdf source. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Needs a review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Article is long enough and new enough. It is well-supplied with citations to reliable sources. I don't see a close paraphrasing issue; I did find a couple of instances where I felt that the choice of words was a bit too close to a source, so I reworded those phrases.
- I have two concerns. First is lack of a QPQ review (the user has plenty of DYK credits, but I don't find a recent review to go with this nom). My second concern is that the hook doesn't make sense. The National Trust web page does describe the drainage as "unique" and as "Y-shaped", but there is nothing particularly unusual (much less unique) about a Y-shaped drainage network (a Y-shaped pattern is actually extremely common) and nothing about the shape of the drainage (nor its west-to-east flow direction) would affect acidity. I see that passage on the National Trust web page as having been creatively worded to create interest; it's not an accurate description of the situation. Another concern with the current hook wording is that plants aren't themselves "acidic" and "alkaline"; these words describe their habitat, not the plants themselves.
- The drainage situation is interesting, though, and Reference 1 describes it in an understandable fashion. What I learned from Reference 1 is that the two branches of the stream flowing through the Moor have very different water chemistry, so one branch of the stream supports acid-loving wetland plants and the the other branch supports wetland plants that thrive in alkaline conditions. I recommend revising the article to rely primarily on Reference 1 to explain the drainage and revise the hook to become something like this:
- ALT2 ... that differences in water chemistry in the two arms of the Y-shaped drainage system on Hartland Moor in Dorset create both acidic and alkaline habitats in one wetland? --Orlady (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- QPQ now done. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Will you be editing the article or addressing the concerns about the hook? Would you like assistance with these things? --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Honestly, I've grown quite tired of this DYK. Your alternative hook is fine, and I've rm "unique" from the article, since it's not this—as for the rest, feel free to assist. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Will you be editing the article or addressing the concerns about the hook? Would you like assistance with these things? --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can anyone reconcile the area of the site, which is 243 Ha per Natural England website (ref #2) and 299.9 Ha per its pdf SSI citation (ref #1)? -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 05:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
