Template:Did you know nominations/Alec Sutherland

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 MeegsC (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Alec Sutherland

(
)

Created/expanded by Bashereyre (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The AFD has closed and the article has been kept. However, a neutrality tag remains on the article, which will need to be resolved prior to approval. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I added the POV tag but have since edited it and I think I've resolved the issue. I think everyone at DYK ought to see the tags for what they are, notices about serious improvements the article needs, not merely annoying banners getting in the way of the DYK nomination as some people would tell me on my talk page. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I did a copyedit of the article during my review to remove POV phrasing. There are some "when" tags in the article that I hope get resolved. In the hook, instead of an MOS:EASTEREGG with "military award for his service", I suggest naming the award he won (Member of the Order of the British Empire). Please ping me if a second review is requested. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment User:Z1720 Thanks for the review. I copy edited this again. There was no copyright violation, but there is an overlap of proper names. That is unavoidable. In any event, I fixed the perceived problem. I added ALT1 per your suggestion. I already did (and listed) a QPQ, to wit: Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret W. Burcham. Apparently you missed it. Thanks again for your review. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@7&6=thirteen: You are correct, the QPQ has been completed and I missed it. My concern about plagiarism concerned close paraphrasing of the source, with sections of the Wikipedia article using a very similar structure and phrasing to the source. I have the impression that paragraphs from the source were copied to Wikipedia and then some words were changed, but the structure of the paragraph remained the same. I did another copyedit to remove the close paraphrasing but I have to step away from the computer right now. Can you do another check and try to rephrase the sentences and remove unencyclopedic information? I'll take another look later today. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Z1720 I guess we disagree. I don't see unencyclopedic content. And there were many sources (a lot of which were there, but have now been strick from in line citations). That the subject matter looks like one article (Earwig says only it is "possible") doesn't mean that it was written that way or from a single source. That there was overlap between sources suggests only that there was a share editorial vision as to what was important.
The structure argument is (IMO) a canard. The words are different. The sentences a different. As I wrote, the articles use words like Mont Blanc in common. This is irreducible.
WP:Not paper
Feel free to edit so you are satisified. There is no copyright violation.
And if you feel you can't or won;t do that, and pass the article, maybe we need another reviewer with a fresh viewpoint. Thanks for your help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @7&6=thirteen: I am willing to copyedit this article as long as my edits are helpful and wanted. I don't think I removed sources, but I removed citations if two sentences in a row were verified with the same source. Others can restore a footnote without my objection. For the "unencyclopedic" information I removed (my description) I felt it was POV and engaged in WP:IMPARTIAL. I also believed it went against WP:MEMORIAL as it was using lots of phrasing normally found in obituaries. I hope my edits brought an impartial tone to the article.
My concern with close paraphrasing was the words, structure of a paragraph, and structure of sections were too similar to the source material. When Earwig returned a 50% "violation possible", I checked the passages it highlighted and I believe that there was close paraphrasing. Some of the text has to remain the same (like the name of an award) but other information should be summarized, as outlined in WP:CLOP. I have tried doing this in my copyedits of the article, but I still think close paraphrasing exists, and can provide examples if requested.
I am happy to solicit other opinions if requested. Thanks for reading this and considering my concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Go for it! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@7&6=thirteen: Would you say "go for it", do you mean you want me to copyedit the article again, or to solicit other opinions? Or both? To be clear, I will conduct another copyedit after another editor has fixed (or attempted to fix) the paraphrasing concerns in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I defer to your judgment. WP:Own. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I won't approve this DYK right now. Please ping me when the paraphrasing has been fixed. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Z1720 I do not believe there is any copyvio. I have edited repeatedly per your direction. These are proper names, and a couple of coincidental overlaps. I have run in circles here to please you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Can another editor give an opinion on the paraphrasing concerns with this article and The Scotsman source (currently ref 8)? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! The close paraphrasing is extensive, including uncommon verbiage - not coincidentally similar phrasing. And what is flagged by earwig's tool appears like it would be simple to rephrase - not things that can only make sense written one way. Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif Thanks for looking. Apparently you see things I don't. These are either proper names or within quotations. So yes, there is a report in Earwig; but no, your conclusion is unfounded. 19:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: I concluded there is close paraphrasing, Kingsif concluded there is close paraphrasing, and Valereee just edited the article twice with the edit summary, "rem close para" which I interpret as "remove close paraphrasing". Three editors, coming to the same conclusion. Before this article can be approved for DYK, the close paraphrasing needs to be removed. I already spent a lot of time removing some of it, but there are still some sections that need edits. I encourage editors to conduct copyedits on the article, then look at the earwig comparison to rephrase sections that use similar language and structure. Once this is done, ping me and I will do another review. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Z1720 I removed quotes that were troubling to you all. Earwig doesn't show a violation. Thanks for all the editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The quote in the reference is not what was causing the close paraphrasing concerns. Plagiarism and copyright violations are different from close paraphrasing. As Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing states, "Close paraphrasing is the superficial modification of material from another source." Close paraphrasing can still exist even if Earwig determines plagiarism is unlikely. I highly suggest that an editor reads through the whole article, removes unnecessary information, summarizes and rephrases the remaining prose, and compares the article's text to the sources. If any sentences or paragraphs are the same, except with some words changed to a synonym, then the prose should be rewritten. Once this is complete, I will take another look. This will not be a short process, and will probably take a couple of large edits to fix, but the close paraphrasing needs to be removed before this is approved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on my talk page or yours. Z1720 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Z1720 This in now scrupulously in chronological order. The sections have been retitled, and the article reordered. If it doesn't satisfy your standard (the words are different, the structure is different — there is no copy violation), and no Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. If you want to say the subject matter and life is shared, that is true. Again, there are proper names. So what? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@7&6=thirteen: Thank you for your edits. I conducted another copyedit of the article and I now think the close paraphrasing concerns have been resolved. I checked the references again, and I am concerned about the above hooks. They imply that the MBE was awarded for his services in WWII, but the sources state they were for his work in the sport of swimming in Inverness. I propose the following hook below.
ALT2:... that Alec Sutherland was awarded the Member of the Order of the British Empire for his work in the sport of swimming? Source: "They include Alex Sutherland for voluntary services to swimming in Inverness." [1]
Does this hook work for you? Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the other so8urces are to the contrary. But I agree with whatever hook we can use. Thanis. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
DYK concerns have been resolved. Approve ALT2 above. (ALT0 and ALT1 have been struck out because sources don't verify their info.) Z1720 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)