Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Frank H. Wadsworth

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SL93 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Frank H. Wadsworth

(
)
Frank Wadsworth in 2002
Frank Wadsworth in 2002
  • ... that prior to the passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, conservationist and researcher Frank H. Wadsworth (pictured) became involved with the efforts to recover the Puerto Rican parrot population? Source: Williams, Gerald W. The Forest Service Fighting for Public Lands. Greenwood Press, 2006. p. 301. ISBN 9780313337949.

Created by Jmoliver (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 19:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The nomination is new enough, long enough, ran Earwig and it's copyright free. I adjusted the article so it's got the inline citation. There's an image, I think it's done correctly. The hook is good. Sources are reliable and there's about 5 to clean up which don't affect the article much. The prose is great. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC) y

  • Hi, Evrik I have gone through the sources first. There are a few issues to rectify first if you would please. First, there are two links to familysearch .org that come up to sign ins when clicked. Perhaps this is expected behavior? Links to sign in box and Links to sign in box. There are several Facebook sources found. See WP:Facebook I'll not put them all in but there are four. However, one comes up with 'Log into Facebook' so I will list that here: [1]. There is one flickr link and I call attention to the text thst says social media is discouraged regarding both Facebook and Flickr. [2]. [3] This site has a paywall. The next two sites look like blogs. But are Spanish so hasrd teo tell but pictures look social. [4] and [5] Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnleelynn (talk • contribs) 16:28, April 11, 2022 (UTC)
  • @Jmoliver: I don't know that those sources are needed. Is it possible for you to clean-up some of these sources? --evrik (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This nomination has some close paraphrasing that needs cleaning up. In Earwig, it's the first two sources listed. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think I got the paraphrasing down to an acceptable level. --evrik (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • evrik I guess we've both been waiting on the other party. I never heard back on the sources cleanup that I wrote up. You had pinged another on them. Let me know. It's late, I'll look first thing tomorrow to make sure there wasn't anything else. dawnleelynn(talk) 05:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • evrik OK, I signed off. You'll have to handle those 5 or so sources in your own time. Also, does the image look good at 100px? Good luck! dawnleelynn(talk) 15:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Dawnleelynn, Jmoliver, and Theleekycauldron: I'm not clear on the status of this nomination. The article has 58 citations. Some of them may be sources that are tied to facebook and flickr. but that's where the information was published. Again, there are 58 citations, I think this can pass. --evrik (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    • @Evrik: no objection to the nomination moving forward (although I haven't looked too far into detail); I was using this nomination as a guinea pig for a promotion script I'm writing. Sorry for the confusion! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
      • @Jmoliver and Evrik: There's a couple of sentences that are uncited in the article, including "Wadsworth created a reference book towards those who aim to make tropical forests more productive as well as students in the forestry schools." and some of the honors. Can these be cited please? Z1720 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Evrik: happy to promote with the original hook right now; but before I did, I thought I'd float including the 3,200 acres? It gives the hook a chance to talk about a success, and not just a novelty. I can write the hook if needed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The hook was pulled due to copyvio concerns, see [6]. —Kusma (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Even if the article is fixed so that there are no copyvios with the English sources, we really do need someone to go through the Spanish sources. SL93 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I think we can take it back to this version. That should remove most of the problematic content. --evrik (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
evrik, whatever is done will need to remove all of the problematic content, not merely most. And nothing has been done after ten days, beyond theleekycauldron's edits made just before the article was pulled. If good progress on the necessary checks and edits hasn't been accomplished in another seven days, perhaps it is time to close this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Theleekycauldron, BlueMoonset, and Dawnleelynn: I've taken it way back. Stripped out a lot of text. It lowered the earwig factors. I think its okay now. --evrik (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    • evrik, did you actually check the Spanish sources as SL93 specified, or find someone to take on that task? There's really no point in calling for a new reviewer unless that's been done given the many issues that caused the article to be pulled in the first place. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
      • I have read the Spanish sources. What can I say? The content has been translated, but I see no copy/paste issues. --evrik (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
        • Copyright laws don't allow copy and pasting of direct translations. It's fine if it's not copied and pasted. SL93 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
        • Evrik The first part of my comment was just a general statement for anyone who comes by. I'm willing to assume good faith if you're sure about it. SL93 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
          • Asking Nikkimaria to check the article to see if there are any lingering copyvio or close paraphrasing issues before asking for a new reviewer. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't assess the issue with Spanish sources as I don't speak Spanish. With regards to the English sources, I'm seeing some verifiability issues (eg the claim "In 1942, he accepted a job at the Tropical Forest Experimental Station" does not appear in the source provided). Copying from PD sources should be indicated (eg the description of the timber management plan appears to be taken almost directly from this USGov source. For the sources that are accessible, English, not PD, and support the claims made, the paraphrasing seems adequate - but given the small proportion I can't say whether that is representative. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I cited the 1942 claim. I did an earwig check on the quoting. Almost every sentence as a reference. I'm okay with the Spanish to English translations. --evrik (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue I raised was not that there are not citations listed, but rather than those citations don't always support the claims being made. Another example: the article claims that he was "the only member of Yokahu Lodge to be awarded" the DSA; the citation provided doesn't mention Yokahu Lodge. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • with this version, I have gone through line by line and I would swear on a pile of puppies that everything is sourced. --evrik (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I've looked for published sources to replace facebook and familysearch. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

- Length, Date, QPQ, and image (PD-US) are good. I also went through the article to check all the English citations (I do not speak Spanish and have not checked those) and, as far as I can see, they checked out. Earwigs also looks good as does a direct comparison against one of the book references (available via Google Books). However, in reworking some language to remove close paraphrasing of the book references it looks like the proposed hook itself is uncomfortably closely paraphrased from here and we will need to rework it/a new hook. Evrik, I'm happy to review a new/modified hook if you have one. Aside from that I think this nomination is close to "getting across the line" as the article has been fairly heavily edited and reviewed since it was pulled. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

- Thanks, evrik, this ALT hook looks good to me. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious how anyone knows that the Spanish language sources match the content and has no copyright violations. SL93 (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I know that Evrik is fine with the translations, but they nominated this highly problematic and pulled article as well. SL93 (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This cannot be promoted until the Spanish sources are checked. DYK really has a huge issue if those sources are ignored. SL93 (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I did check them. What what happened the AGF on foreign-language sources? --evrik (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm just being cautious when even the content from the English sources had issues. It's not assuming bad faith either, but it is being extra careful with potential mistakes considering what has happened already and I'm sure the original promoter agfed blindly as well. SL93 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Pinging the original promoter theleekycauldron for their thoughts. I honestly don't want to be in a bad position at errors or in general. SL93 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
You're also the nominator. I don't understand why you're reviewing it also. SL93 (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed it, but have been trying to troubleshoot the nomination. The author kept adding and editing the article after I nominated it, which IMHO is where most of the issues arose. I don't think you'll find that I added a checkmark anywhere on the nomination. --evrik (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
That isn't what I mean, but I will readd the approval. I will not be promoting it though. Someone else can do that if they feel the need to. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • As pointed out before, there is still close paraphrasing of an English source here. I will review the Spanish sources for copyvio but not sure how long it'll take me. (one day / a few hours / minutes?) There are approximately 13 sources. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    withdrawing approval pending The Eloquent Peasant completing their checks mentioned above.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I looked at all the Spanish sources and I didn't find any copyviolations. Sorry for the delay. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    • U@Amakuru: I think the Spanish source material has not been copy violated - looks good to me. Cheers! The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    - OK thanks. Good to go again.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Frank_H._Wadsworth&oldid=1095843426"