Template:Did you know nominations/Sha'ab, Israel

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PumpkinSky talk 13:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sha'ab, Israel[edit]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Sha'ab was one of several villages in Galilee which rebelled against the Ottomans in 1573 CE (981 H)?

Created/expanded by Huldra (talk), Zero0000 (talk). Nominated by Huldra (talk) at 18:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed Oddfellows' Hall, Chester

Overall (not on, but since October 27) this is a fivefold expansion. I have fixed the few format issues, and do not note any close paraphrasing or other copyright issue. The article is well written, and the refs are reasonably formatted. AGF on the hook, though it is rather bland (I should think one about the depopulation or the half-Roman mosque would be more catchy). Dahn (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing issues found, particularly with the Petersen source. A couple of examples: "This hall is square, covered with a dome. The dome rests on large squinches, which are supported by corbels" vs "a square room, covered with a dome, resting on large squinches, supported by corbels"; "the domed prayer hall is consistent with an 18th-century construction date" vs "The domed prayer hall is consistent with an eighteenth century date". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If it were a complex description of a complex thing that had been copied, you'd have a point. But this is a bare description of terminology that doesn't really accept much more variation - I'd AGF here. I was concerned about the issue myself, when noticing that the editor had adapted the shibboleth "Schismatic Greeks" from a source, instead of the much more PC "Orthodox", but even there it was a translation from the French rather than a copying of the source (which was PD either way). But what other examples have you got, before we ask Huldra to give his/her account? Dahn (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Dahn, it is as simple as using this tool. Just run it yourself and you can correct all the issues before it becomes an issue. Kanatonian (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you'll be so kind as to tell me how I'm supposed to be running that tool over a printed book I have never even glanced at. Dahn (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dahn, close paraphrasing via translation is still close paraphrasing. Other examples include "above the doorway was a reused Roman lintel" vs "above the doorway to the mosque was a reused Roman lintel" and "who found that the mosque dated from the time of Zahir al-Umar" vs "who wrote that the mosque dated from the time of Zahir al-Umar". If there were only one example, I'd AGF and let it go, but with this many it's a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What I'm asking is that we don't become zealots. We shouldn't require of editors to be searching for synonyms to "lintel" and "corbel" and "dated from", and some of the examples above seem to be revolving on that pretentious requirement. (Before you ask) I never did do close paraphrasing myself, of any kind, but I still don't see why so much creativity would be expected in recreating info picked from one source. It's like telling users to be creative about citing the labels on medicine, or the bus schedule. Virtually nothing either than adopting a bizarre phrasing, randomly omitting referenced information, or giving quote upon quote to every trivial detail could ever rephrase something as bland and specific as "something dates back to x period". Dahn (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And: Nikkimaria, the supposed close paraphrasing from a foreign-language, translated, source is irrelevant. That source is, as I think I said once already, a PD source - it's not a good idea to parrot it (I for one wouldn't even consider copying it, especially not for quaint colonial vocabulary), but neither is it a legal issue of any kind. It would be legally relevant for a copyrighted source, but otherwise it's a minor issue of style. What we were discussing is the supposed copying of short descriptions, in very technical, almost "un-paraphrasable" language, from an Anglophone source. The article is not exactly super, but let's lean on the side of caution for now, instead of mixing PD and copyrights, translation and original language, apples and oranges to call "copyvio". It may just fit the DYK criteria as is. Dahn (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call it copyvio, nor suggest that there was a legal problem. I did, and continue to, call it close paraphrasing. DYK's requirements extend beyond simply "no copyvio", and writers are expected to phrase submissions originally or indicate where they have not done so. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As a reviewer, I simply cannot see what "loose paraphrasing" would be in this context, considering that some paraphrasing has already happened. From the examples, you can either render a source like that verbatim, in quote marks, or paraphrase whatever can be paraphrased - and I believe the author has tried for the latter. To imply more is needed is to ascertain that more is actually feasible, not just to state "computer says no". Dahn (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I did an independent review of the paraphrasing issue, looking only at the few sources that I could access, and I deem the article to be OK in that regard. Other elements check out OK. AGF on the hook fact, but I would change "which" to "that". (For the record, when I moved this to the queue it was based on my approval. There was an approval by a newbie reviewer recorded below this nom that appeared to belong to this nom. I figured I was quietly checking the newbie's work and signifying approval by sending the hook to the queue, so I did not document my review.) --Orlady (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)