Template:Did you know nominations/The Pheasantry
- 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Persistent close paraphrasing
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Pheasantry
[edit]
- ... that a resident of The Pheasantry supposedly gave their pet rabbit acid and dyed it bright green so that it "committed suicide" by leaping from the roof?
- Reviewed: The Finest Hours (2015 film)
- Comment: Bit late - muddle about the dates!
Created by Edwardx (talk), Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC).
Freikorp, while I agree about the backlog and stretching it if it were four days, according to DYKcheck the article qualifies as a 5x expansion from August 16, and being nominated on August 25 means it was only two days late, not four—you have seven days from the creation/expansion date, so August 16 normally means nominating by August 23. (The August 15 creation means that at worst this was three days late, still significant, not four.) If this is still deemed too late at two days, the article can be renominated should it be further expanded and improved and become a Good Article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I wrote most of it and I can tell you that a 5x expansion is very unlikely. Could it be reopened? There is worthwhile material here. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- What the hey, i'm feeling generous so i'll review it. Article is long enough, stable, free from tags or obvious bias and well referenced. Offline source accepted in good faith, however, can you clarify what the source says? I can't tell from the wording (so that it "committed suicide") whether this man supposedly dyed it green in order to make it commit suicide, whether you're trying to imply that it committed suicide because it was unhappy about being dyed green and on acid, or whether the "suicide" just happened as a result of being on acid. Wow that was a weird sentence. :) Freikorp (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Friekorp. Here is the exact quote from the Decharne book: "**** was living there as well. You see him on certain album sleeves, he was one of those typical King's Road freaks, with his hair completely frizzed out. At one point he had a rabbit that he dyed bright green, that committed suicide by leaping off the roof. I think he used to give it acid. He was a *ucking mad idiot. I mean..." etc. This is Decharne quoting Barry Miles. I will leave the name out just in case the individual is still alive which is possible. It's nobody famous. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that a resident of The Pheasantry owned a pet rabbit which had been dyed bright green, may have been given acid, and "committed suicide" by leaping from the building's roof?
- Suggesting ALT1, so we need a new reviewer now. Would you care to do the honours BlueMoonset? The article is fine, I just need someone to review the hook itself. Freikorp (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that a resident of The Pheasantry had a pet rabbit which he dyed bright green and may have "committed suicide" by leaping from the building's roof under the influence of drugs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philafrenzy (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've struck ALT1, which appears to be describing the suicide of a flea, or some other creature which resided on the rabbit. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ha! Good point lol, I can't believe I missed that. I've reworded ALT1 to remove this issue and removed the strikethrough. Freikorp (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that a resident of The Pheasantry had a pet rabbit which he dyed bright green and may have "committed suicide" by leaping from the building's roof under the influence of drugs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philafrenzy (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It's disappointing to discover this, but checking the first of the online sources, FN6, reveals close paraphrasing of the sort I and Nikkimaria have found too often recently in articles by Philafrenzy and Edwardx. Given that the rules were stretched to allow this nomination to be considered—and I pointed out the possibility—I think it's dangerous to approve this, especially as we have no access to the many offline sources, where the paraphrasing is as likely as not to be problematic. (The fact that FN6 is a bare url, along with FN19, which could have delayed the nomination since bare urls are not allowed in DYK articles, is not a factor in this decision, nor is the over-a-month-old "citation needed" template.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- The bare urls and citation needed are easily fixed. All articles are works in progress and these are minor points. I think it is grossly excessive to say the paraphrasing of offline sources is "likely" to be problematic. On footnote 6 I assume you are referring to the original:
- "The last of the family to work there, Felix Joubert, made miniature furniture and other items for Queen Mary's dolls' house, and also designed the cinema next door at nos 148-50 called the Electric Theatre in 1912. (fn. 15) The showroom had closed by 1914 when only the basement was kept as workshops, and the rest let as studios, and Felix Joubert retired in 1932."
- I agree the wording was too close so I have reworded it to:
- "The last Joubert to work at The Pheasantry was Felix who was there until 1932. He made furniture for Queen Mary's dolls' house and designed the Electric Theatre cinema adjacent at 148-50 King's Road in 1912. He had closed his showroom by 1914, retaining only the basement as a workshop and letting out the rest of the building as studios."
- I see that all of your 37 articles BlueMoonset appear to relate to the TV programme Glee for which there are quite different types of sources from historical articles. Often I only have one source for a particular point and it may simply state facts in a logical or chronological order. It's a bit harder than you think to paraphrase that sort of source without changing the meaning, introducing new interpretations or awkward or misleading phrasing. I will continue to do my best and fix things where problems are pointed out. I fully agree we need to be careful and I appreciate your diligence but let's not throw out good articles where problems are fixable. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Citation added and bare urls fixed. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy, to be blunt, close paraphrasing is close paraphrasing, and you've shown not only an inability to recognize it while you're writing, but a stubborn reluctance to check thoroughly for it afterward—given the recent experience I've had with close paraphrasing in articles you've written, you've used up AGF: I can no longer trust that online sources will be properly paraphrased, so the same has to apply to all sources, whether online or offline. As it happens, I've rewritten problematic passages in all sorts of articles, including historical ones, so your attempt to claim my specialty blinds me to the problems you're facing is misguided. I'll tell you what, though, since you're eager to save this nomination: I'll call Nikkimaria to check this article for close paraphrasing, but hold off until you tell me that you've done everything possible to eliminate close paraphrasing. (You can have up to a week, or longer if you find a mentor to help you with this perennial problem.) If Nikkimaria finds any significant close paraphrasing, the nomination closes. If she doesn't, then we find a reviewer to check the article against the remaining DYK rules, and proceed from there in the normal way. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Citation added and bare urls fixed. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see that all of your 37 articles BlueMoonset appear to relate to the TV programme Glee for which there are quite different types of sources from historical articles. Often I only have one source for a particular point and it may simply state facts in a logical or chronological order. It's a bit harder than you think to paraphrase that sort of source without changing the meaning, introducing new interpretations or awkward or misleading phrasing. I will continue to do my best and fix things where problems are pointed out. I fully agree we need to be careful and I appreciate your diligence but let's not throw out good articles where problems are fixable. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Just been through it and checked it and made numerous copyedits. Seems fine to me. Can we have a full review please? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's not fine, unfortunately: the passage you mentioned above is still too close to the source, as your own comparison shows. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Try it now. I moved the bit about the theatre to a footnote as well as it was extraneous and made the rest flow better. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- As stated above, the nominator was given up to a week to fix the close paraphrasing, and if Nikkimaria found that the article still contained closely paraphrased material after the edits to fix the problem were completed, the nomination would be closed. As the edits were completed yet the problem remained, it is now closed as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)