- 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 Carabinieri (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Terry Fulmer
edit- ... that Terry Fulmer was the first nurse to serve as president of the Gerontological Society of America?
- Reviewed: Indian River Inlet Bridge
Created/expanded by GorillaWarfare (talk), Monark.nakrani (talk). Nominated by GorillaWarfare (talk) at 16:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
A significant portion of this article is copied from an external blurb written by the subject, and the article in general needs editing for neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- with regards to the blurb, it's been released under cc-by-sa, per the otrs ticket on the talk page. WormTT · (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that. My concern here is not in regards to copyvio, but neutrality - we basically have a situation where most of the article and its sources were written by the subject, and consequently the article's tone is not very neutral. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't see it as excessively promotional, but I can't disagree that the tone in not very neutral. I've removed some extrenuous promotional information which was uncited (or cited to a self-publication). I've also added another source (though it's a press release) to improve matters. WormTT · (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I was careful to look over the text that was added by the subject and removed some promotional material when doing so. The rest, I feel, is relatively neutral, despite being written by the subject. Nikki, what parts do you see as non-neutral? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- To my eye, this still reads too much like the subject's own self-promotional bio and not enough like an encyclopedia article -- and I note that most of the sources are blurbs that Ms. Fulmer submitted for various purposes. I think the article would benefit from the use of some true third-party sources. Possible candidates (not ideal) include [1] (which I can't access) and [2]. Also, a more objective (and more chronologically based) career summary could be written by using her CV as a source of raw information. --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- What's your opinion of this revision? This is what we compiled from sources such as the one you mention, before Fulmer's own text was added. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- The tone of that version is vastly better. The current version may have some additional details or other niceties that could be added to it, but it seems to me it would be best to revert to the old version and add to it... --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the article was reverted to the earlier version. That resolved the matter of tone, but there is still reason for concern about close paraphrasing. The hook fact is just one example:
- Article: Fulmer is the first nurse to ever serve on the board of the American Geriatrics Society, and the first nurse to serve as president of the Gerontological Society of America.
- Source: Fulmer was the first nurse to be elected to the board of the American Geriatrics Society and the first nurse to serve as the president of the Gerontological Society of America. --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- The tone of that version is vastly better. The current version may have some additional details or other niceties that could be added to it, but it seems to me it would be best to revert to the old version and add to it... --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- What's your opinion of this revision? This is what we compiled from sources such as the one you mention, before Fulmer's own text was added. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- To my eye, this still reads too much like the subject's own self-promotional bio and not enough like an encyclopedia article -- and I note that most of the sources are blurbs that Ms. Fulmer submitted for various purposes. I think the article would benefit from the use of some true third-party sources. Possible candidates (not ideal) include [1] (which I can't access) and [2]. Also, a more objective (and more chronologically based) career summary could be written by using her CV as a source of raw information. --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I was careful to look over the text that was added by the subject and removed some promotional material when doing so. The rest, I feel, is relatively neutral, despite being written by the subject. Nikki, what parts do you see as non-neutral? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't see it as excessively promotional, but I can't disagree that the tone in not very neutral. I've removed some extrenuous promotional information which was uncited (or cited to a self-publication). I've also added another source (though it's a press release) to improve matters. WormTT · (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that. My concern here is not in regards to copyvio, but neutrality - we basically have a situation where most of the article and its sources were written by the subject, and consequently the article's tone is not very neutral. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- with regards to the blurb, it's been released under cc-by-sa, per the otrs ticket on the talk page. WormTT · (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The above instance of close paraphrasing is the sort of thing that could be resolved by incorporating factual details from her CV. For example: "In 1998, she began a six-year stint as a member of the board of the American Geriatric Society, the first non-physician ever to serve on that board," and "In 2005-2006 she served as president of the Gerontological Society of America, becoming the first nurse ever to hold that office." --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have reworded (thanks for the suggestion, Orlady), and incorporated some of the info from the version she wrote. However, I've found most of it is contained in the current revision of the article. Thoughts? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)