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 Yoninah (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing
Overall: I think QPQ is not required because user has less than five DYKs, am I correct? I prefer the original hook. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this to an image slot, but ALT0 reads like a statistic, not a hook. Perhaps the hooks could be combined for hookiness, or another hook fact could be used? Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I was just reading through the article, and during the Aftermath section I realized that terms like "guilty" and "concluded" were being used in the article even though this wasn't the court's verdict, I decided to look into the sources, and found a very close correspondence between the article text and the third source, "National Register of Historic Places Registration Form". There needs to be a complete revision of the non-quoted text so it is not overly closely paraphrased, but in a new wording. I'm not sure why periods rather than commas are used to denote thousands in the dollar amounts, but the oddity of the numbers (the three figures do not add up the the total loss, which is less than the value of the ship alone) should have been noted, and other sourcing sought. (Source 14 has the number $283,189.81, which is $300.00 under the total of the three figures given, rather than the $238,189.91 figure in Source 3, clearly the result of some very careless typing/transcribing, along with "affects" for "effects", etc.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
GreatLakesShips, while I appreciate you fixing them, the numbers and "effects" were the least part of what is wrong here; the problem is the extensive and overly close paraphrasing of the NRHP source in the article. If you look in the editor, at the top of the page here, you'll see that it says that the article must be free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism, and at the moment is just isn't. You need to address this problem soon, if you wish this nomination to succeed—I have just tagged the article for close paraphrasing, and the tag can't be removed until the close paraphrasing is. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
GreatLakesShips, I'm afraid that your recent edit in the Aftermath section did not adequately address the issue; the close paraphrasing is too wide-spread in the article. I consulted with Nikkimaria this evening—she's the DYK expert on close paraphrasing, copyvio, etc.—and she concurs with my analysis and placement of the close paraphrasing template on the article. Under the circumstances, I think it's best to mark this nomination for closure as unsuccessful, since the problems have persisted for a month. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I think QPQ is not required because user has less than five DYKs, am I correct? I prefer the original hook. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this to an image slot, but ALT0 reads like a statistic, not a hook. Perhaps the hooks could be combined for hookiness, or another hook fact could be used? Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I was just reading through the article, and during the Aftermath section I realized that terms like "guilty" and "concluded" were being used in the article even though this wasn't the court's verdict, I decided to look into the sources, and found a very close correspondence between the article text and the third source, "National Register of Historic Places Registration Form". There needs to be a complete revision of the non-quoted text so it is not overly closely paraphrased, but in a new wording. I'm not sure why periods rather than commas are used to denote thousands in the dollar amounts, but the oddity of the numbers (the three figures do not add up the the total loss, which is less than the value of the ship alone) should have been noted, and other sourcing sought. (Source 14 has the number $283,189.81, which is $300.00 under the total of the three figures given, rather than the $238,189.91 figure in Source 3, clearly the result of some very careless typing/transcribing, along with "affects" for "effects", etc.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
GreatLakesShips, I'm afraid that your recent edit in the Aftermath section did not adequately address the issue; the close paraphrasing is too wide-spread in the article. I consulted with Nikkimaria this evening—she's the DYK expert on close paraphrasing, copyvio, etc.—and she concurs with my analysis and placement of the close paraphrasing template on the article. Under the circumstances, I think it's best to mark this nomination for closure as unsuccessful, since the problems have persisted for a month. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
