Template:Did you know nominations/2023 Texas dairy farm explosion
- 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 Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
2023 Texas dairy farm explosion
- ... that a recent explosion at a dairy farm in Texas, United States, killed off almost 3% of the state's dairy cattle? Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/04/13/18-000-cows-killed-dairy-farm-fire-dimmitt-texas-what-know/11651207002/
- ALT1: ... that an explosion at a dairy farm in Texas, United States, may have been caused by a "honey badger"? Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65258108
- ALT2: ... that an explosion at a dairy farm in Texas, United States, was claimed to have been caused by a "honey badger"? Source: https://www.dairyherd.com/news/business/what-we-now-know-about-what-caused-large-fire-texas-dairy-farm
- Reviewed:
- Comment: Article is currently at AFD, but it seems to be a strong keep.
Created by Knightoftheswords281 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2023 Texas dairy farm explosion; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- AFD does not seem to go anywhere near delete, so I will ignore it. Length and newness sufficient without any indication of copyvio (Earwig shows long commission names and direct quotes). I can't access USA Today for some reason, but the Houston Chronicle states "almost" 3% instead of just 3%, so I will add that. Otherwise, as this seems to be your first DYK nomination, good to go. Juxlos (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This article contains too-close paraphrasing of multiple sources. Compare for example "the fire spread swiftly throughout the holding pens, where thousands of cattle were crowded together" with "The fire spread quickly through the holding pens, where thousands of dairy cows crowded together", or "if the explosion was large enough to ignite even a portion of non-fire-resistant insulation, then it would quickly spread throughout the entire building, which covers almost 40 acres" with "if the explosion was big enough to catch any part of non-fire-resistant insulation on fire, then it would spread like wildfire across the entire building, which covers nearly 40 acres". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)- @Nikkimaria, Juxlos, Bruxton, and Knightoftheswords281: There hasn't been any updates to this nomination since April and it's already June. Have the issues been addressed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- No. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hold on, I will wrap this up by tomorrow. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 14:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria, Juxlos, Bruxton, and Narutolovehinata5: I've fixed the final paraphrasing issues in the article, should be ready to go. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk Contribs) 03:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Only one of the examples given above was edited, and not sufficiently. This needs a more comprehensive reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Both example sentences have been rewritten to effectively comply with WP:CLOP. @Nikkimaria: - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Have you assessed the rest of the article and ensured similarly too-close paraphrasing has been rectified? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I have - those appear to have been the only two instances. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, are you satisfied with the condition of the article as regarding close paraphrasing after the recent edits? If not, then I think it's probably time to close this. Thanks for checking. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any major issues on spotchecks of the present sources, but the Causes section is mostly unsourced - where is that information from? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, the source was accidentally removed in this edit, it's been re-added. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 20:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks - that piece could use a bit more reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, could you please clarify on what needs reworking? - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 22:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- That section in particular is a bit too close in wording to its source and would benefit from more thorough paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've reworded the paragraph a bit to reduce the closeness of the paraphrasing. Should be good now. User:Nikkimaria. — Knightoftheswords 19:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Are you referring to this? Unfortunately that is too minimal a change to make much of a difference. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've reworded the paragraph a bit to reduce the closeness of the paraphrasing. Should be good now. User:Nikkimaria. — Knightoftheswords 19:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks - that piece could use a bit more reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, the source was accidentally removed in this edit, it's been re-added. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 20:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any major issues on spotchecks of the present sources, but the Causes section is mostly unsourced - where is that information from? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, are you satisfied with the condition of the article as regarding close paraphrasing after the recent edits? If not, then I think it's probably time to close this. Thanks for checking. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I have - those appear to have been the only two instances. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Have you assessed the rest of the article and ensured similarly too-close paraphrasing has been rectified? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Both example sentences have been rewritten to effectively comply with WP:CLOP. @Nikkimaria: - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Only one of the examples given above was edited, and not sufficiently. This needs a more comprehensive reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria, Juxlos, Bruxton, and Narutolovehinata5: I've fixed the final paraphrasing issues in the article, should be ready to go. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk Contribs) 03:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
It looks like the nominator put in a good-faith effort, but three months is more than enough time to address the issues. Trying to learn the informal guidelines that CLOP rests on is super frustrating, but unfortunately, DYK does have to keep chugging. Marking for closure. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
