Template:Did you know nominations/Ali Marpet


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ali Marpet

 * ... that Ali Marpet is the highest-drafted NFL pick in the history of NCAA Division III American football?


 * Reviewed: Terug tot Ina Damman.

5x expanded by Epeefleche (talk). Self-nominated at 21:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Hook is short and punchy (and slightly tweaked for clarity), sourcing is thorough, and the text is detailed and sufficiently neutral. Article was 1597 characters of readable prose before expansion began and 10328 characters five days after, far exceeding the 5x expansion requirement. However, spot checks of the prose found close paraphrasing (such as "his size coming out of high school kept bigger schools away" from the Boston Globe and "His size when graduating from high school had kept bigger schools away" from the article) which needs to be cleared up before this can be promoted. - Dravecky (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Revisions have somewhat improved the situation but there are still whole long phrases that are word-for-word matches to sources like this one. - Dravecky (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made revisions, seeking to address your concerns. Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's better, but I still keep finding things like "Hobart, a private liberal arts institution of 2,396 students in the Finger Lakes region" (from the source) and "Hobart is a private liberal arts institution of 2,396 students in Geneva, in Upstate New York" (in the article) which still fall into close paraphrasing. - Dravecky (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That falls squarely within the ambit of WP:LIMITED. Most of the words there are immutable -- Hobart, private, liberal arts, 2,396, students. However, I can and will change institution.
 * That's similar, for example, to the DYK article for April Nelson saying " Her platform is "IOU, Improving Others Through U'", while the ref states: "Her platform is 'IOU, Improving Others Through You.'" -- that also, and similar instances, though close to the ref's language fall within WP:LIMITED, because: "Close paraphrasing is ... permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing ...." That's the case when in single sentences the words are largely immutable words.
 * Furthermore, as Close paraphrasing points out, "A close paraphrase of one sentence from a book may be of low concern, while a close paraphrase of one paragraph of a two-paragraph article would be considered a serious violation ... The editor must be extra careful in these cases to extract the facts alone and present the facts in plain language, without carrying forward anything that could be considered 'creative expression'". I don't think there is any "creative expression" at all in either example -- this is all presentation of dry facts, in non-creative dry factual language. Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The quoted part of the example you cite (everything but "Her platform is") isn't a phrase I've chosen but the actual title of Nelson's platform, like a movie or book title, and not subject to my personal creativity as a writer. Describing Hobart with that exact phrasing, including a precise student body figure that's likely no longer accurate, lifted from the source is a choice. If you think I'm being unfair, ask one of the other DYK regulars to look over Ali Marpet and if they're willing to give it a checkmark then I'll step quietly aside. - Dravecky (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure -- let's let a DYK regular (or other seasoned editor) review. I think the example you point to, supported by multiple RSs, in one brief factual-laden sentence, falls precisely within WP:LIMITED. At the same time, I'll round the figure that is reflected in the multiple RSs. Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the only holdup a matter of paraphrasing or is a total review required here? I am actually not the best reviewer for paraphrasing because I know there are websites that analyze copyvios that I do not use. However, this article passes the eye test on most issues and is certainly the type of content that I feel the main page should present. I would suggest changing the citations to the more common multicolumn format. The article has expanded sufficiently since May 25 to be eligible. The hook is intersting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I think the second example above is fine per LIMITED, I do feel that there is some close paraphrasing not covered by that provision. Compare for example:
 * "Marpet quit playing football after his freshman year, to concentrate on basketball, which he also played for the school, and in which he was a two-time all-league selection.[8][18] He returned to the football team as a junior, by which time he weighed 210 pounds (95 kg).[8][19] When he graduated in 2011, weighing 240 pounds (110 kg), and until the spring prior to his senior year in college, his plan was to pursue a college degree in economics and then a job in finance" with
 * "Marpet quit football after his freshman year at Hastings High School, 20 miles northeast of New York City, to concentrate on basketball. He returned as a junior but didn't consider himself a football player first and foremost until his senior year. When he graduated from Hastings, weighing 240 pounds, and until the spring before his senior year in college, the plan was to pursue a degree in economics and a job in finance."


 * While there has been some other content interspersed, this passage is similar in both phrasing and overall structure - in my opinion, too similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would argue that some facts should be summarized, while others should be relayed to the reader. He is presenting the encyclopedic content in a rephrase manner. I don't think we should expect that the content be further altered than it is. He has not done anything remotely resembling copying the content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with Nikkimaria on this one, TonyTheTiger. The similarities are too striking in the sentences she compared above. If the nomination was promoted as is, I'd pull it from prep on the basis of that single comparison. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that wp:Limited, especially with regard to shorter paraphrases, and those that have multiple sources, and are cited, can involve a gray area in which reasonable people can view the paraphrases as too similar or not. I agree with Nikki, Tony, etc. as to the first instance Nikki refers to being within wp:Limited. Happily, I can easily further edit the second instance Nikki refers to, which as Nikki indicates also had additional content interspersed. I've done so, as well as made further edits to the article. Epeefleche (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Given the substantial editing since I first reviewed this article, I believe that my concerns about close paraphrasing have been addressed. - Dravecky (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)