- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Wyman-Gordon
edit
- ... that Wyman-Gordon's 50,000-ton press (pictured) was the largest machine in the world when completed in 1955?
- Reviewed: Caesars World
Created/expanded by Aymatth2 (talk). Self nom at 15:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Good to go.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the phrasing in this article may be too close to that of its sources, in terms of both wording and structure. Compare for example the "Background" section to this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem at all - the wording is quite different - but have deleted the offending section. Any other examples? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Other examples include "produce complex forgings and extruded shapes from custom-designed dies using various different alloys" vs "producing complex extruded shapes using custom designed dies in a variety of alloys" and "magnesium components with much larger presses than had been thought practical" vs "magnesium forgings with presses larger than any previously thought practical". Be mindful also of larger-scale structural similarities. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have reshuffled these, but it is hard to avoid using many of the same words when dealing with technical concepts. For example, there are no synonyms for "extruded shape", "complex forging", "magnesium", "press", "die". What are the other examples? What are the large-scale constructs? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Large-scale constructs" refers to sentences or paragraphs that are structurally the same, even if the use of synonyms creates the superficial appearance of proper paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Which are the problem large-scale constructs? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- For example, in the last paragraph of the article, or the last Growth paragraph. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have reshuffled these, but it is hard to avoid using many of the same words when dealing with technical concepts. For example, there are no synonyms for "extruded shape", "complex forging", "magnesium", "press", "die". What are the other examples? What are the large-scale constructs? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Other examples include "produce complex forgings and extruded shapes from custom-designed dies using various different alloys" vs "producing complex extruded shapes using custom designed dies in a variety of alloys" and "magnesium components with much larger presses than had been thought practical" vs "magnesium forgings with presses larger than any previously thought practical". Be mindful also of larger-scale structural similarities. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem at all - the wording is quite different - but have deleted the offending section. Any other examples? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria I do not accept your opinion, although I encourage you to make any edits to the article that you feel would address your concerns. The last paragraph of the article says, in summary, "Wyman-Gordon today uses massive presses and custom dies to make complex components used in various industries". The last Growth paragraph says, in summary, "A shortage of titanium meant W-G could not fulfill orders, so W-G bought a titanium producer, built processing facilities, and solved the problem". The article gives a compact synopsis of the information provided by the sources. It communicates essentially the same information as the sources, as one would expect. It does not introduce new information, omit essential information, or to the front from the back everything arrange. I see no problem. As you may know, mere facts and ideas are not subject to copyright in the USA. You may want to review the article on Substantial similarity, which gives a useful discussion of the tests that may be applied to determine whether an infringement exists in cases when a copy is not exact and complete. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yep - this case does not constitute a copyright violation. However, it is also not well paraphrased. Compare the last sentence of Growth to the last two sentences of the relevant paragraph of this source. The wording is not identical, but the structure is quite similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria I do not accept your opinion, although I encourage you to make any edits to the article that you feel would address your concerns. The last paragraph of the article says, in summary, "Wyman-Gordon today uses massive presses and custom dies to make complex components used in various industries". The last Growth paragraph says, in summary, "A shortage of titanium meant W-G could not fulfill orders, so W-G bought a titanium producer, built processing facilities, and solved the problem". The article gives a compact synopsis of the information provided by the sources. It communicates essentially the same information as the sources, as one would expect. It does not introduce new information, omit essential information, or to the front from the back everything arrange. I see no problem. As you may know, mere facts and ideas are not subject to copyright in the USA. You may want to review the article on Substantial similarity, which gives a useful discussion of the tests that may be applied to determine whether an infringement exists in cases when a copy is not exact and complete. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Here are the passages that you are concerned about, first the synopsis in the article and then the source:
- The company now had complete control of its supply chain and orders began to grow again as customers regained confidence in Wyman-Gordon's delivery capability.
- The company now controlled all the essential technologies involved in producing titanium components, including sponge manufacturing, melting and alloying, and the forging process. As a result, customer orders began to increase due to customers' confidence that Wyman-Gordon could provide an uninterrupted supply of titanium forged parts.
- You may want to check Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which gives a good explanation of what would constitute a problem. There is no problem here. Possibly you are confusing similarity of information and sequence with similarity of structure, a common error. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Here are the passages that you are concerned about, first the synopsis in the article and then the source:
- What about the USS United States (CVA-58)?--Carabinieri (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- It was not built. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I mean the USS Forrestal (CV-59).--Carabinieri (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how to compare. The ship has a 59,650 ton displacement and is 325 meters long. The press exerted a force of 50,000 tons and was 10 stories high. It is debatable if the ship is a single machine or the ship's engines, hoist etc. are separate machines in one hull. I have no idea what was the total weight of the press, its foundations, housing and all the peripheral machinery in the plant, or how many acres the plant covered. The source says the press was the world's largest. Maybe it is like the world's tallest building - there are at least ten of them. Any suggestions on the hook? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to compare, myself. I wouldn't be totally opposed to the original hook.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how to compare. The ship has a 59,650 ton displacement and is 325 meters long. The press exerted a force of 50,000 tons and was 10 stories high. It is debatable if the ship is a single machine or the ship's engines, hoist etc. are separate machines in one hull. I have no idea what was the total weight of the press, its foundations, housing and all the peripheral machinery in the plant, or how many acres the plant covered. The source says the press was the world's largest. Maybe it is like the world's tallest building - there are at least ten of them. Any suggestions on the hook? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I mean the USS Forrestal (CV-59).--Carabinieri (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- It was not built. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- What about the USS United States (CVA-58)?--Carabinieri (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that according to ASME, Wyman-Gordon's 50,000-ton press (pictured) was the largest machine in the world when completed in 1955?
- Minor ce to ALT1 (and added the hyphen to the original hook, too). BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Since no one else is commenting on this nomination, I'm just going to go ahead and approve it. The only thing up for discussion was the hook. Though not quite as elegant as the original, I think ALT1 is much safer and still impressive, so I'd favor using it.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Um, no. Nikkimaria originally pulled this nomination on May 12 due to paraphrasing concerns, which she still believed existed as of May 18, though Aymatth2 disagrees with that assessment. If you believe, contra Nikkimaria, that these concerns should not stop the nomination and wish to approve despite her reservations, I think it's incumbent on you to address them above. The hook was a minor sideline issue; the issue remains the paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, I thought that had been settled, should've looked at the discussion more carefully.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- There has been no response from Nikkimaria to my reply to the "large scale construct" issue. The synopsis in the article gives a business interpretation of the facts provided by the more engineering-oriented source, and both are in chronological sequence, but otherwise they seem very different. They do of course cover the same events. How should this be resolved? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think I've fixed this, though I would appreciate a third-party check of my work. On another note, this source would appear to be a copyright violation, no? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- There has been no response from Nikkimaria to my reply to the "large scale construct" issue. The synopsis in the article gives a business interpretation of the facts provided by the more engineering-oriented source, and both are in chronological sequence, but otherwise they seem very different. They do of course cover the same events. How should this be resolved? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, although I would be a bit more sparing of commas. At first I wondered about that web source. However, when you check the Scripophily home page it says "We Offer Original Stock and Bond Certificates, Wonderful Selections of Financial History ... recently acquired the Old Stock & Bond Research Archives from Herzog & Co., Inc. The asset purchase includes all archives, publishing rights and copyrights on obsolete research reference material published by the Marvyn Scudders Manuals, the Robert D. Fisher Manuals, and the Herzog & Co., Inc." I assume this includes rights to the book, which is correctly attributed by Scripophily. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I dug around a bit more. This link shows that St. James Press, publisher of the International Directory of Company Histories, is a brand of Gale (publisher), a subsidiary of the privately-held Cengage Learning. Gale's "About" page says "Gale also licenses its proprietary content for integration within Web-based information services." Scripophily.com is in the business of selling old stock certificates to collectors, and part of their service is to give information about the company that issued the certificate. I would say that the content is being republished under license, and think it is acceptable to leave the url for anyone who wants to check the article against the source. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This needs a reviewer who's especially good at paraphrasing issues to check Nikkimaria's revisions to make sure they've solved the large-scale construct issues. If so, this article should be ready. A ruling on the hooks would also be helpful. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above sounds a bit intimidating, as if a reviewer needs a PhD in paraphrasing to check this particular article. I can't see that the author of any of the sources would be resentful of the use this article makes of their work, and assume Nikkimaria would now agree. That is really all that matters. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I spent some time with the article and sources. In addition to looking for closeness of wording and structure, I made some additional edits, including some rewording to prevent misinterpretations, spelling corrections, wikilinks, and a bit of rewording that I think further increases the distance between the sources and the article. After Nikkimaria's edits and further changes, I think this is fully ready for the main page. --Orlady (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Orlady. Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
