Talk:Felisa Vanoff/Archive 1

Removal of secondary source with no explanation and mangled layout

Hello. This edit mangled the layout, with 'career' and 'philanthropy' being under the 'early life and education' section, which makes no sense. It also added another subsection for 'affiliation,' when those affiliations are philanthropic, and should thus be in the 'philanthropy' section. Moreover, the editor has removed a secondary source from The Beverly Hills Courier, which baffles me. The result is that the page looks terrible now, and is less referenced. I hope this gets fixed. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the layout. I would also like to add the reference from the Beverly Hills Courier back. User:Yoninah, surely one more reference cannot hurt?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see what you mean about the layout. Originally you had all the subheads as sub-subheads (3 equal signs on each side). I changed the first one to a regular subhead (2 equal signs on each side) and neglected to change the others. Thanks for doing what I intended to do, and overlooked.

Regarding the local paper, why are you so insistent on it? It practically reads like a word-for-word copy of the Variety article. Also, it is only available if you sign up for it, whereas your other refs are easily viewable by anyone. Yoninah (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had to sign up for anything online with the Courier...only with the LA Times or WSJ. I could find the PDF if you want, with specific page numbers (that's free and uploaded online every week). The PDF is the exact same newspaper as the print version. This reference would be a print evidence then, as opposed to a weblink; this might be better? I usually don't like removing references, unless they are biased or unreliable...but in this case, the Courier really is a good reference I think. And yes, I thought it was strange about the layout. Sorry if I overreacted, but I have had to deal with horrible editors lately.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's not worth arguing about this. I went ahead and restored the ref for you. Yoninah (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing explanation

Hello. I would like User:BlueMoonset to give a lengthy, in-depth, specific explanation for the so-called "close paraphrasing" here. This will be a way to see how we can all improve the page in a constructive manner. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My go-to person when it comes to close paraphrasing judgment and explanations is User:Nikkimaria. She's the one you want here. Best, BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've tagged her, so she should see it. I tagged you because you are the one who added the ugly tag on the article. Let's try to fix this instead of saying it is bad and leaving it as is.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is no longer close paraphrasing apparently. So problem solved? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Zigzig20s. If you look at the history you'll see that I'm the one who removed the tag, basically to take the pressure off you so you could get the job done. See my detailed explanation in the DYK template. BlueMoonset added the tag in good faith after seeing my (and your) comments in the same DYK template previously. So let's all calm down, shall we, and just get the job done, so as to clear this nom from the DYK backlog. I'm sure you are going to put it right, now that you have been given a full explanation, but if that doesn't happen for any reason, the tag will have to be reinstated to give some other editor the chance to put it right. --Storye book (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Storye book, I added the template because of the issues you pointed out, yes, but I checked and confirmed that there was enough close paraphrasing to warrant the template before I applied it to the article; it would have been irresponsible of me to do so otherwise. Under the circumstances, once the template had been applied, the article really should have been edited to address the issue before the template was removed. So far, the bulk of the edits—moving a chunk of text to earlier or later in a sentence—do not ameliorate any close paraphrasing, which is real: using "so-called" in the edit summaries is both inaccurate and needlessly provocative. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been fixed. If you want to suggest other passages that need to be rewritten, please let me know and be precise, so that this can be fixed and we can avoid talking about it. Enough talking; let's finish the work now. I cannot rename the operas as suggested earlier however. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot be specific in a way that it can be fixed in a constructive manner, some may assume you are trolling, and thus the tag will be invalid. So please be specific, let's fix this, and stop wasting time talking about it. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is still concerning close paraphrasing in the article. There are two basic types of close paraphrasing: the first involves closely replicating the wording of a source (perhaps with clause swapping or minor word substitution), while the second is structural, copying the phrasing or organization of the source on a broader scale. Both types are present in this article, particularly concerning the Variety source: much of the Career section is structurally very similar to that source. In terms of close wording, compare for example "Proceeds benefited Nick's Tix, a non-profit organization providing low-cost tickets for students, seniors, and the disabled" with "Proceeds funded Nick’s Tix – low-cost tickets for students, seniors and the disabled". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just changed "low-cost" with "cheaper." But yes, it is chronological. The structure of biographies are always from birth to death, with a career in between.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just changed "non-profit" with "philanthropic", and the other part with "young people, handicapped people and the old".Zigzig20s (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What else would you like changed? I don't think we could have the death section before the birth section, however. And I don't think it would make any sense, in the career section, to talk about what she did at the end of her career, before talking about how she started. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's not entirely clear to me from the source that it's entirely chronological: if a source says she did X and Y, that doesn't necessarily mean that she did X first and then Y. I will also note that simply changing a few synonyms will not solve a paraphrasing problem - you need to rewrite the problematic phrases more substantially, and/or use direct quotes as appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you could question everything. Those are reliable sources though. Plagiarism would only occur if there was a quote word by word without quotation marks, or if the idea was taken from an external source which was not cited. However, everything is cited here, and there are no word-by-word whole passages/quotations. I am not sure if Wikipedia has invented something beyond plagiarism, but that seems weird. I frankly think you're trolling, because you are not being constructive in your criticism. And I have tried, for several days, to be patient and constructive and fix it after asking for specific concerns.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

private residence or home

I would prefer saying she died at her "private residence" rather than her "home," as "home" sounds too informal to me. A "private residence" sounds slightly more formal; thus perhaps more encyclopedic. What does everyone else think?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]