- 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 Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Doughnut
edit
- Reviewed: Adoration of the Magi (Veronese)
Created by Gareth E Kegg (talk). Self nominated at 23:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC).
Hook is interesting, fact checks out, article is long enough and free of copyvio. However I am a bit concerned that some aspects of the article read like a promotional leaflet for the building (i.e. slight fail on the neutral requirements). I question the need for the working environment section when most of the content could be placed within the previous sections. In particular in the paragraph starting "Working practices...". In addition I'd suggest paraphrasing that paragraph as the quotes are a bit "business-speak" for our readers - or in short, perhaps try some plainer English. Otherwise, great work. --Errant (chat!) 09:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's a great suggestion. The majority of literature on the Doughnut has that promotional feel, dating from when it was completed and showed off to the world. I'll rejig it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the hook, which I think is misleading: stating that GCHQ turned 50 buildings into one building implies that the current building includes those buildings, rather than replaced those buildings. I would suggest changing the hook to:- ALT1: ... that GCHQ replaced 50 buildings with a single doughnut (pictured)? Harrias talk 08:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's far better. Thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "hierarchical, compartmented and introverted, qualities which were successful against Cold War targets...new ways of working, emphasising knowledge-sharing and flexibility" with "hierarchical, heavily compartmented and [a] relatively introverted organisation which had coped successfully with the monolithic cold war target...different ways of working, senior GCHQ officials say. The new emphasis is on "knowledge-sharing", flexibility". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've amended that passage. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, but that was only an example - there are a number of instances of very similar phrasing or structure. Compare for example "the computers involved shutting down each one individually before restarting them in the new building" with "involved shutting down each computer system and restarting them in the new building". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've amended some more. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Appreciated, but at this point, more in-depth rewriting would be beneficial. There are still instances of near-identical phrasing and similar structure, for example in the phrases "the largest secret intelligence building outside the United States" and "no colleague in the building is further away than five minutes from another". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'll try and revise it, but am finding it difficult to reinterpret facts without losing their meanings. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
[[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]]Any progress here? Time for re-review yet? --PFHLai (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a good idea to post the "again" icon when close paraphrasing has been identified and the article has not been subsequently edited. We don't need a reviewer; we need revisions to the article. I've just pinged Gareth; if no action is taken within two weeks of the latest review (about 36 hours from now), the nomination will be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
-
- I've made some small changes. --PFHLai (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- So did Gareth. Shall we reset the clock? --PFHLai (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. I made a few edits as well. What I'd like to do is, once Gareth is done—and we need to hear from him soon on whether he is already finished or when he expects to be done—is to call in Nikkimaria one last time. If the article is now free of close paraphrasing, or there's only a minor bit left, then we fix what remains and we're good to go. If Nikkimaria still finds evidence of a number of instances of close paraphrasing remaining, I think it will be time to consider closing the nomination. It's up to Gareth to get everything fixed, or to find someone who is willing to take the time to find all the places where close paraphrasing remains and fix them, since Gareth has said he finds this process difficult. BTW, PFHLai, you don't need to strike icons once they've been superseded; the latest icon always rules. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'll endeavour to make a few minor changes, but I believe my work on this nomination is finished. Thanks for all your help. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I've just done a bit more work on this and think it now should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
