- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Thomas Sturgis
- ... that Thomas Sturgis was a prisoner of war in the American Civil War, a prominent cattle grower, and Fire Commissioner of New York City? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
5x expanded by Eddie891 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC).
- Starting review. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Prose size -
3656 bytes, prose size before September 28 - 403 B. Meets 5x expansion. - Previous main page appearances - none found
- Long enough - 3656 bytes, not a stub
- Citations -
Inline citations used, appropriately identified, no bare URLs. Hook is not sourced in the nomination, but the fact that he was taken prisoner is cited from Harrison 1902. No cited statements in the article that he was a "prominent cattle grower" (I think you mean cattle rancher), so hook is uncited. - Plagiarism/Close paraphrasing - very close paraphrasing of large sections of the article from the 1902 Harrison book, which has an expired copyright.
- Hook - has problems with souring, and is not very interesting.
- Hook image - none to evaluate
- Prose size -
Rejecting due to close paraphrasing problems. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @RecycledPixels: if the 1902 book has an expired copyright, then there is no close paraphrasing concern. The issue for DYK would then be if 1500 characters of new text are included in the article to satisfy the length requirement. Since the nomination is not being rejected outright, but has sourcing and hook-writing issues that the nominator can fix, the
icon should be used instead. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: As I mentioned, the article clearly meets the length and expansion requirements. I might have done the review wrong, but I was following the steps outlined on Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage, which, as criteria #5, asks for an evaluation of whether the article is free of copyvio or plagiarism, and specifies that, "Material taken from public domain or compatibly licensed sources is properly attributed in line with Wikipedia:Plagiarism." Reviewing the linked guideline document, I felt that the article fell short of the guidelines in the "Avoiding plagiarism" section and did not meet any of the exceptions listed in the "What is not plagiarism" section. Please note, I said the article had a problem with close paraphrasing, not copyright violation. I don't understand your comment that there is no close paraphasing concern if the source being copied has an expired copyright. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- So apparently you are saying that a "public domain" line needs to be added at the bottom of the page, under Sources. You could do this yourself, or ask the nominator to do it. Aside from that, 1500 characters of new text, not copied from the public domain source, need to be present to qualify for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- In answer to your last question, if the source being copied is public domain, then it's not considered copying. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
-
- Okay. I disagree, but I appear to be the only person who feels that this is a WP:PLAG problem. I have no objection if someone wants to give a second opinion and overrule my objections identified above. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Second review: 5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. I cannot view the whole 1902 source, but from the paragraphs I see, I don't see close paraphrasing. QPQ done. Image is public domain. I personally find the hook interesting; 2 hook refs verified and cited inline, 1 hook ref AGF and cited inline. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- @RecycledPixels: if the 1902 book has an expired copyright, then there is no close paraphrasing concern. The issue for DYK would then be if 1500 characters of new text are included in the article to satisfy the length requirement. Since the nomination is not being rejected outright, but has sourcing and hook-writing issues that the nominator can fix, the
