The following is an archived discussion of Josiah Gregg's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Mentoz86 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC).
Josiah Gregg
edit
... that Josiah Gregg (pictured), author of Commerce of the Prairies, died in a fall from his horse after discovering the location of Humboldt Bay, California, by land?- ALT1: that 47 Mexican and Southwestern plant species are named in honor of Josiah Gregg (pictured), author of Commerce of the Prairies?
- ALT2: that Josiah Gregg (pictured), author of Commerce of the Prairies, died after his expedition fixed the location of Humboldt Bay, California, by land?
- Reviewed: Hertford County Public Schools
- Comment: began expansion 18 February 2013; 157 character hook, article was 468 words, now 2631 words.
5x expanded by Ellin Beltz (talk). Self nominated at 07:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC).
good expansion on solid sources. I tried to link to his work, and accepted that the inline citation is not right behind the fact because it is part of a longer quote. The pic is free and useful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)- I was alerted to possible close paraphrasing in the old parts of the article and would like an expert in that field to look at it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- The old editor who is reported to have been a problem editor, left the page looking like this 21 April 2011 version. Since then several other people worked on details in the article. Not much if any of that phrasing remains so I don't understand why just having a controversial former editor cause this page so much trouble so many years later. This is only the fifth DYK article I've worked on; I am not as experienced as many of the people who volunteer on DYK articles. I have read up on close paraphrasing and plagiarism, but would point out that there are only so many ways to describe historical events (e.g. "merchant's caravan" or "sailed from Mazatlan to San Francisco"). This is understood as necessary and pointed out in WP:LIMITED. Editors also have to be careful about WP:NOR, what is written in the article must conform to the sources. Thus if all sources say he joined a merchant's caravan, I find it a problem to change that to he was along for the ride on a wagon train just to avoid using the same words. I have looked and looked at this article and the sources, and I really don't see close paraphrasing except in one sentence where a list of who and what were on an expedition together were presented. I don't know how to rearrange x# of men, x# of wagons, and x# of hooved stock to avoid close paraphrasing in that regard and still keep the information in the article. I ran the article and the source the old editor used against each other in a cross-checker today and got zero overlap for phrases not unavoidable (e.g. "Josiah Gregg", "New Mexico", "Humboldt Bay", etc.). I don't know what to do now that Gerda Arendt has said she's not qualified to look into the allegations of close paraphrasing. If Gerda hadn't stayed in touch with me, I would not even have known of the problem, as the person who complained to her didn't tell me what was wrong. This is the first problem I have had of this type in the six years I've volunteered for Wikipedia. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I had tried to win Moonriddengirl, Thruthkeeper tried today to win Nikkimaria, - both are capacities in the field, - I don't see the problem enough to fix it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ellin, initially I alerted Gerda on her talk. I am qualified, and the text was problematic. I don't know what to do either, but I've fixed as much as I could. I did answer your query here.
- Here's the original message I left for Gerda so that others can decide:
- The old editor who is reported to have been a problem editor, left the page looking like this 21 April 2011 version. Since then several other people worked on details in the article. Not much if any of that phrasing remains so I don't understand why just having a controversial former editor cause this page so much trouble so many years later. This is only the fifth DYK article I've worked on; I am not as experienced as many of the people who volunteer on DYK articles. I have read up on close paraphrasing and plagiarism, but would point out that there are only so many ways to describe historical events (e.g. "merchant's caravan" or "sailed from Mazatlan to San Francisco"). This is understood as necessary and pointed out in WP:LIMITED. Editors also have to be careful about WP:NOR, what is written in the article must conform to the sources. Thus if all sources say he joined a merchant's caravan, I find it a problem to change that to he was along for the ride on a wagon train just to avoid using the same words. I have looked and looked at this article and the sources, and I really don't see close paraphrasing except in one sentence where a list of who and what were on an expedition together were presented. I don't know how to rearrange x# of men, x# of wagons, and x# of hooved stock to avoid close paraphrasing in that regard and still keep the information in the article. I ran the article and the source the old editor used against each other in a cross-checker today and got zero overlap for phrases not unavoidable (e.g. "Josiah Gregg", "New Mexico", "Humboldt Bay", etc.). I don't know what to do now that Gerda Arendt has said she's not qualified to look into the allegations of close paraphrasing. If Gerda hadn't stayed in touch with me, I would not even have known of the problem, as the person who complained to her didn't tell me what was wrong. This is the first problem I have had of this type in the six years I've volunteered for Wikipedia. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Gerda I read this article because it's interesting, but looked at the history and noticed it was one that Billy Hathorn worked on. I don't know whether you're familiar with the history with him, but anyway found some close paraphrasing that needs to be addressed. Examples:
- From this source [1], article says
- "In 1831, on the advice of his doctor, Gregg left Missouri and took a trip west to Santa Fe, New Mexico, on a new trail beginning at Van Buren, Arkansas with a caravan of merchants",
- source says, "On the advice of his doctors Gregg made his first trip west in the spring of 1831, across the plains to Santa Fe with a merchant caravan".
- And this source, (btw the link is wrong), [2],
- article says "During 1848 and 1849 Gregg joined a botany expedition that went through western Mexico and began sending specimens of plants to eastern naturalists and corresponded within George Engelmann in St. Louis, Missouri, sending him collections of plants, many of which were previously undescribed."
- Source says, "Having become acquainted with the German naturalist Frederick A. Wislizenus, he joined a botanical expedition to western Mexico and California, during which he corresponded with and sent specimens to the eminent botanist George Engelman in St. Louis.
These are fairly easy fixes, but result from a very looking at only two sources, so the rest of should be checked. I thought about putting this on the nom, but haven't checked the history to see when the edits were added. It's tricky because the current nominator probably didn't introduce the errors, so I thought I'd alert you since you reviewed and approved. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would have preferred this hadn't been dropped and certainly didn't expect that to happen. Like you, I now don't know what to do either. The fixes were minor and have been done, and I don't know why it can't be passed now - but I think having another set of eyes is good too, and I'm sure Nikkimaria will have a look when she has time. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) My understanding was that these instances were possibly only the tip of an iceberg (see above, "These are fairly easy fixes, but result from a very looking at only two sources, so the rest of should be checked.") I felt unable to do this, asked Moonriddengirl and informed the author, - call that "drop" if you have to. - I never counted this review for qpq, because I felt I didn't complete it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would have preferred this hadn't been dropped and certainly didn't expect that to happen. Like you, I now don't know what to do either. The fixes were minor and have been done, and I don't know why it can't be passed now - but I think having another set of eyes is good too, and I'm sure Nikkimaria will have a look when she has time. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Summary of paraphrasing checks
- FN1: nothing egregious, but structurally quite close - suggest further rewording
- FN2, 5, 10, 14, 15: don't have access, but minimally used anyway
- FN3: summary of primary source, no issues
- FN4, 7, 8, 9, 12: fine
- FN6: don't have access, but suggest quote for lovestruck
- FN13: only used for quote
- FN11: close - compare "an Indian woman who found him alive near the Eel River and took him to her village" with "an Indian woman found the doctor alive near the Eel River and took him to her tribal village"
- However, regardless of the issue of paraphrasing, the article does not currently qualify for DYK: a very large quote was presented inline instead of blocked, and block-quoting it puts the article well under the 5x expansion character count. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your great help, Nikkimaria and Truthkeeper. I am relieved about the plagiarism concerns. The article was substantially expanded, from c.1,5 to c.8,7 chars. Wikipedia should be grateful. I ignore the rule about some chars missing for 5 times. (If you, Ellin, want to add and/or rephrase the quote, even better.)
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- --Gerda, perhalps some day you'll learn to read the underlining facts of what editors are actually saying, rather than viewing it all through the prism of what you hope they are saying. There are serious concerns here, and it seems to me that your approcah is ok, fine, how do we work around this and keep on going anyway. Ceoil (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Gerda, I just looked at this with a view to promote, and while Ellin's done some good work with this expansion, under the circumstances I can't: since Nikkimaria did make specific paraphrasing suggestions with FN1 and FN11, this has to be addressed. FN11 is a clear problem, though it shouldn't require a great deal of work to fix them both, and perhaps the FN6 suggestion as well. Also, while the article is not yet 5x expanded, as Nikkimaria notes, it appears to me that Ellin is much closer than indicated. According to DYKcheck, the size of the article prior to expansion was 1922 prose characters, but that includes an improperly formatted hatnote, the text of which is actually formatted properly and thus excluded in the expanded article, so it should be excluded then, too. Subtracting those 84 characters gives a base of 1838, setting the 5x expansion at 9190 prose characters. DYKcheck gives the current size at 8718, which is only 472 characters shy of the requirement. It seems to me that a little work on the article would satisfy both the length and the wording issues currently noted. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please explain to me what is "FN1" and "FN11" and I will be happy to make changes. I have additional materials on Mr. Gregg to look through later today and I hope to add enough material to this article to bring it to quality, standard and word count for DYK. I learn a lot every time I get an article DYK'd (this might be my fifth one) and the process is as much a part of the learning experience as the material. Thank you for your help in this regard! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand FN1 and FN11 as the sources numbered 1 and 11, as described in their check above. Thanks for planning to expand further, - I hoped you would ;) - I would like the quote to stay in the article because it gives a good feeling for the language at the time, but please place it in <blockquote>quote</blockquote>. - I had the problem more than once: planning to expand an article 5 times, and at 4.5 times reaching a point when further editions were no more to cover the subject better but only to fulfil the requirement. Good luck! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation of "FN"! I have completely changed the former statements referenced to FN11, I hope those changes are acceptable. For FN1, I have gone back through the entire article, reading very carefully between the page and the sources and have changed, fixed and tightened up the article. The article now has 10,227 characters with the blockquote correctly formatted (thank you to the editor who fixed that). So, the expansion size problem is now fixed, and I hope the prose problem is also fixed. Please let me know what else I need to do (if anything) at this point? Thank you so much for your time and attention to this DYKnom! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looks much better from what I can see, thank you. However, I now have a couple of questions about the hook. First, the article states that the discoverer of Humboldt Bay was not Gregg, but another member of the party. Second, there's the issue of confusion surrounding when and from what Gregg died. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation of "FN"! I have completely changed the former statements referenced to FN11, I hope those changes are acceptable. For FN1, I have gone back through the entire article, reading very carefully between the page and the sources and have changed, fixed and tightened up the article. The article now has 10,227 characters with the blockquote correctly formatted (thank you to the editor who fixed that). So, the expansion size problem is now fixed, and I hope the prose problem is also fixed. Please let me know what else I need to do (if anything) at this point? Thank you so much for your time and attention to this DYKnom! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand FN1 and FN11 as the sources numbered 1 and 11, as described in their check above. Thanks for planning to expand further, - I hoped you would ;) - I would like the quote to stay in the article because it gives a good feeling for the language at the time, but please place it in <blockquote>quote</blockquote>. - I had the problem more than once: planning to expand an article 5 times, and at 4.5 times reaching a point when further editions were no more to cover the subject better but only to fulfil the requirement. Good luck! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please explain to me what is "FN1" and "FN11" and I will be happy to make changes. I have additional materials on Mr. Gregg to look through later today and I hope to add enough material to this article to bring it to quality, standard and word count for DYK. I learn a lot every time I get an article DYK'd (this might be my fifth one) and the process is as much a part of the learning experience as the material. Thank you for your help in this regard! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is it possible to change the hook? Perhaps to "that Josiah Gregg, author of Commerce of the Prairies, may have died in a fall from his horse after his expedition fixed the location of Humboldt Bay, California, by land" I am sorry about the confusion of where and when he died; some of that emerged during the citation searching associated with fixing this article to DYK standards. Again I apologize for all the confusion associated with getting this article in shape, I have learned a lot during the process and it will only help all the other articles I work on in the future. Thank you for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Better don't change the hook (for the history of the discussion) but provide a new one or more, prepared: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am adding these two suggested hooks. I hope one or the other of them will be ok. I put them at the top of this nomination and also down here because I don't know which one is preferred, and whichever is wrong, someone else can delete! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: that 47 Mexican and Southwestern plant species are named in honor of Josiah Gregg (pictured), author of Commerce of the Prairies?
- ALT2: that Josiah Gregg (pictured), author of Commerce of the Prairies, died after his expedition fixed the location of Humboldt Bay, California, by land?
- Fine, I don't mind the duplication for such a long discussion, adding (pictured). I guess we need a link to Southwestern, or will all readers get it, next to Mexico? No Alt will be deleted,just one chosen. So:
to check the two new hooks and their sources. Sourcing and "no plagiarism" for the article have been checked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
for ALT1 I agree with others that the ambiguity and conflicting report about when/where Gregg dies makes the original hook problematic and the rewording in Alt2 makes the hook less interesting, IMO. Many people die after doing something, etc. Alt1 is not only well sourced and interesting (with room to perhaps even add the list of varieties named after Gregg to the article rather than buried in the See Also section) but also offers the opportunity to put a picture of one the plants on the main page to get more of a variety rather than another old white guy pic. Just a thought. Took another look at the sourcing/close paraphrasing and it does look like all the issues that were previously noted have been taking care of. AgneCheese/Wine 02:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
