Template:Did you know nominations/Judith Marquet-Krause

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 Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Judith Marquet-Krause

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Judith Marquet-Krause

• ... that archaeologist Judith Marquet-Krause (pictured) disproved that the Book of Joshua was a factual account of the city of Ai? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Mary Wells

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 10:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC).

• Awesome article that is both new and long enuf for DYK. QPQ done. No evidence of copyvio. Hook fact is verifiable, although I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to tweak the hook a little (it seems to imply that she actively set out to disprove Joshua's accuracy, which is quite the contrary to the intent of the expedition!). AGF on some sources I can't view. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Image also seems like it complies with guidelines. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks Kingoflettuce - what about:

ALT1 ... that excavations led by archaeologist Judith Marquet-Krause (pictured) disproved that the Book of Joshua was a factual account of the city of Ai?

Does that move the emphasis enough? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

ALT1 is definitely better. Striking ALT0. Interesting article. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have unpromoted this. Please see Special:Diff/1135318350 for a discussion of the WP:PARAPHRASE problems. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @97198, Lajmmoore, Cielquiparle, and Kingoflettuce: -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    hello RoySmith, thanks for flagging this - I wonder if the issue was caused by the fact I used a translation from NL? Either way, I'll fix it in the next 48 hours. Thanks again Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    hello @RoySmith: I've taken another look and weeded out, I think the worst paraphrasing. I'm not sure what to do about the structure - whether that too is considered COPYVIO? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Nikkimaria: could I impose on you to take a look at the latest version? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    Certainly better, although the Career section in particular could do with a bit more reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

    I've done a bit more reworking, but I'm also at a bit of a loss with the structure since the JWA article is written quite like a Wikipedia article, I'm finding it challenging to see how to structure it differently. If someone could offer some advice that would be very much appreciated. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

    Pinging RoySmith to recheck; if the issues are too extensive for a reviewer to grapple with, I'd say that the nomination could be closed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

    Theleekycauldron, RoySmith just to add, I have re-run Earwig and its returning a "copyvio unlikely 7.4%" - I'd be happy to try to find a new reviewer, as I think this would be a good page to showcase. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• My apologies, I must have missed the previous ping. This looks good to go now. I just spent some time going back and forth between the articles on {en,es,nl,he}wiki and the JWA source; I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't copy from one of our versions at some point (some of our articles predate the JWA), but in any case, I think what we've got now is fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith, thanks very much! With a massive facepalm: it didn't occur to me that the JWA article might have mirrored one of the other language versions - thanks for doing further investigation. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

References