Template:Did you know nominations/Kee Klamp

Kee Klamp

 * ... that Kee Klamp structural pipe fittings (pictured) were devised for cows' milking stalls in 1934 in Reading, Berkshire?
 * ALT1:... that market leader of structural pipe fittings business Kee Klamp (fitting pictured) was not referred to the Competition Commission after the 2003 takeover of a competitor?
 * ALT2:... that Kee Klamp structural pipe fittings (pictured) were devised in 1934 and have been used in kite buggying as well as more traditional guard rail applications?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rudy Kurniawan
 * Comment: The main hook is from a primary source, so perhaps not ideal. -- Trevj (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Trevj (talk). Self nom at 09:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I agree that a primary source isn't ideal for the hook fact. ALT1 is ok. "in reading england for the manufacture of milking stalls for cows" is too close to its source (the history section of the company website). One paragraph in the section 'Usage' is unreferenced. Otherwise new enough, long enough. Photo suitably licensed.  Schwede 66  05:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've reworded that sentence and added the missing ref. -- Trevj (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 is good to go.  Schwede 66  18:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I am greatly concerned by the excessively close paraphrasing of this source; I haven't yet checked others. Compare, for example, "The Kee Klamp brand is said to be the 'premium' brand within the market," in the source with the article's "The Kee Klamp brand is said to hold the "premium" position within the market." This isn't even given a citation. Another: "from low-cost contract manufacturers, primarily in the Far East" in the article vs. "from low-cost production facilities, primarily in the Far East" from the source; even though it is cited, it changes a mere two words, copying an entire five-word phrase intact. It should have been quoted if the exact wording was being used.


 * I initially went to flag this nomination because ALT1 is singularly uninteresting, and it still is. But given the earlier problems with close paraphrasing, it's highly unfortunate to have found more of them. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a look. I'm very surprised that you've found such similarities between my words and that source, especially now I feel that I'm more aware of the guidelines. I'll have a look. Regarding reader interest or otherwise in the hook, that depends on the reader. Those following business subjects would probably find it of interest. -- Trevj (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the paraphrasing issues, I've added another ref for the 1934 origins and suggested ALT2. Do you find this more interesting? -- Trevj (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For ALT2, the kite buggying is interesting, but the fall arrest application is not supported by the inline citation and would require a cite that actually talks about this. (It should have one anyway.) ALT1 is inherently uninteresting because it talks about something that didn't happen, but doesn't give clues about why. "Market leader" could be with 20% of the market; 70 to 80 percent makes it a bit more puzzling. If it were phrased to say Kee Klamp had a market share of at least 70% before acquiring a rival, that would make the non-referral more interesting. Wording is very important if you want to hook the reader.


 * Since you have not yet dealt with the problematic sentences, I've removed them for the time being to avoid copyvio issues in the article. You can replace them with new or properly paraphrased material at your convenience. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll check the rest of the text and replace the removed sentences appropriately. Regarding ALT2, I misinterpreted current ref. 7 in my rewording as "fall arrest". I've now replaced that with "guard rail", which I believe summarises platform handrail systems and other safety barriers from the source. -- Trevj (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've checked through now. While I note that there remain some other occurrences of repeated words, I'm having difficulty finding other ways of presenting the information without changing the meaning. Some example expressions are listed below, which IMHO do not include creative content. I've also now reworded and reintroduced the removed material -- Trevj (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "a subsidiary of KIG holdings"
 * 2) "of 20–30 per cent"
 * 3) "in some European countries"*
 * 4) "financial cost of entry"
 * 5) "a small proportion of"*
 * 6) "70–80 per cent"
 * 7) "5–10 per cent"
 * 8) "contract manufacturers"
 * 9) "upon the application"*
 * 10) "incremental services"
 * 11) "finished structures"
 * 12) "remained constant"*
 * 13) "relatively modest"*
 * 14) "internal sales"
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The first sentence I had a problem with up above was slightly revised and restored, but it is still far too close to the original, so I have removed it again.


 * I looked at a few other sources, and found one identical phrase that needs to be paraphrased (I don't think simply quoting it would work): "welding or specialist skills".


 * There are naturally some pieces of information that should not be changed: percentages, including ranges, is a clear one if the information is germane, since the numbers themselves can't change. (If appropriate, they can convert to words, e.g., "five to ten percent", but that's a choice, not a requirement.) Others, which I have marked with asterisks, are more easily modified: depending on context, both "relatively modest" and "a small proportion of" could become "a minor component of" or similar wording if referring to sales. And some I'm puzzled by you including them at all: "upon the application" could easily be "on what it's being used for" or the like, which strikes me as clearer anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Further rewording, for consideration. Regarding the first sentence, it's a lead summary of my reworded content under Kee Klamp (The premium branding the product is said to hold is due to KIG offering incremental services.). IMO this summary belongs in the lead because it's the reason why people often refer to such systems under the 'Kee Klamp' moniker, even though the generic term structural pipe fitting exists. I'm struggling to find alternative wording here. The word "premium" could be added to the first sentence instead, but that may be considered promotional; this is clearly not the intention. -- Trevj (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for signing this off earlier; I can't have looked closely enough. Thanks, BlueMoonset, for having a more thorough look.  Schwede 66  19:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It happens; I've missed things myself. For close paraphrasing/copyvio, I find WP:Duplication detector is a very useful tool to do a spot check of online sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Trevj, I don't see any sign of you having addressed "welding or specialist skills". I did realize that the lead summary was based on the later description, but it simply can't be given in words so close to that source. Would a synonym for "premium" be "high-end"? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot about the welding. I've just changed that, but it's potentially introduced another issue because one could argue that "skilled" isn't a synonym for "specialist". I've also reintroduced "premium" (with reference to Pricing): this is recognised terminology, whereas "high-end" would not, I believe, be used in a encyclopedia containing business subjects. If there is consensus with good reason to use "high-end" or similar, I will of course abide by that. I hope that doesn't sound as if I'm being too awkward. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to know if you're conveying the meaning exactly, but "specialist skills" is an awkward construction (just what you expect from a government or business document), and I think what you've done conveys the basic idea: the welding is a special skill, and that sort of thing is not required to assemble Kee Klamp. "Premium" is one of those branding terms that has been stretched to mean all sorts of things; high end is one aspect, but if it doesn't quite fit here, then there's certainly no requirement to use it. I meant it as a suggestion if it worked, not a required alteration. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good job in addressing the close paraphrasing issues. Thanks for your patience. I have struck ALT1 because it was not sufficiently interesting, but see my earlier comments on it if you want to attempt a more intriguing variant. ALT2 remains approved. Thanks for your patience! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your advice and patience too. I'm personally more comfortable with ALT2 anyway, which is more neutral than ALT1. -- Trevj (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)