Template:Did you know nominations/Lake of the Woods (Oregon) & Lake of the Woods Ranger Station

Lake of the Woods (Oregon), Lake of the Woods Ranger Station

 * ... that the historic Lake of the Woods Ranger Station is located at the north end of Lake of the Woods near the crest of the Cascade Range in southern Oregon?
 * Reviewed: Church of St Michael, Alnham

Created/expanded by Orygun (talk). Self nom at 00:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svgSymbol confirmed.svg Detailed articles, hook acceptable but a bit boring, perhaps add a date, "was built in the 1930s"? Attractive pic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How about DYK "... that the historic Lake of the Woods Ranger Station was built in the 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corps at the north end of Lake of the Woods near the crest of the Cascade Range in southern Oregon?" This meets 200 character limit if you don't count word "that" at beginning of text.--Orygun (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Preferred, and good to go, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing concerns. Example: "a University of Michigan study done for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife concluded that it was unlikely that any sucker species were native to the lake" vs "University of Michigan, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife concluded that it was unlikely that any sucker species were native to the lake". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sentance now reads: "However, a University of Michigan study done for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife concluded that there were no sucker species native to the lake."--Orygun (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have now had a chance to run comparison of article text with reference text—found only 4 cases where there were 10 or more words that were in the same order… and none of these should be of concern when they are carefully reviewed in context. First, there are no duplicate sentences.  Second, the article is about “Lake of the Woods” which mean every time the subject is sited it the text with a “the” in front of it and a common verb (e.g. "is" or "was") after it, you will find a sequence of six matching words.  Here are the 4 longest phase matches: 1) …the lake was restocked with rainbow trout, brook trout, and kokanee salmon…”—note that 7 of the matched words are the result of listing 3 fish species in the same order, each fish taking two word to properly identify plus an "and" to connect them; 2) “…Lake of the Woods Resort Company to build a resort at the lake…”—note that “Lake of the Woods Resort Company” is a single proper name so those 6 words must be always be used in that sequence in order to properly identify the company; 3) ”…one or more sucker species may have been native to the lake…”—one simple thought that would be hard to say any other way; and my favorite duplicate text “…Land Use and Fisheries History in the Lake of the Woods Watershed…” which never actually appears in the article text—in fact, this is the title of the reference article and is copied word for word in the footnotes as you would expect to properly site that source.  Also, ran comparison looking for less than 10 word matches and got thing like “…interviews with fishermen who visited the lake in the…”, “the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife concluded that…”, and “…water is lost through groundwater seepage and evaporation…”.  If I need to change some words I will, but when the matches are all phases and usually the results of multiple word proper name (e.g. "Lake of the Woods Resort Company"), or list of common things (e.g. "rainbow trout, brook trout, and kokanee salmon"), or title of reference sources (e.g. "Land Use and Fisheries History in the Lake of the Woods Watershed") some judgment needs to be applied to the word counts tool's output.--Orygun (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By "tool", I assume you refer to the Duplication Detector? That tool only displays word-for-word copies, but synonym replacement and otherwise superficial paraphrasing is not caught. You really need to check it manually. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've run Duplication Detector--findings are addressed above. Article has ~2,150 words with 4 word matches exceeding 10 words--those are discussed above.  Now, would like someone to take a look at article and tell me if additional changes are required. If you have time, please take a look and tell me what needs to be fixed...or clear it so DYK can be released.--Orygun (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like no one has time to do in depth review, so here’s proposal to move ahead with DYK. Recommend dropping lake article from hook and focus it on ranger station alone.  While I’d like to see both included, this may be best way to move forward.


 * How about DYK that says: "... that the historic Lake of the Woods Ranger Station was built in the 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corps at a mountain lake near the crest of the Cascade Range in southern Oregon?" Here's ranger station photo for consideration.--Orygun (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Both articles were reviewed. Someone found paraphrasing too close, that was fixed. To my understanding the ALT hook is ready to go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg approve alt hook by Gerda, with color photo as it's much prettier ;-) Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, as Gerda's alt hook includes both articles as bolded, using it would require that both articles pass review, and the second still does not. Further examples of problematic phrasings: "In 1951, the resort building burned down and construction on a new resort was begun" vs "In 1951, the resort burned down and construction on a replacement began" and "Oregon State University researchers interviewed several fishermen who visited the lake in the 1880s and 1890s, a period well before the first documented fish stocking occurred" vs "He interviewed several fishermen who visited the lake in the late 1880s and 1890s, well before any documented fish stocking". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to understand. I reviewed BOTH articles and suggested a rewording of the hook. The author did, I said "Preferred". Then copyvio questions came up, to my understanding resolved. I don't see what is missing to run Orygun's ALT hook (13 November). But if something is missing, the easier solution would be to just unbold the article in it. It will still get attention, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your alt hook can run with the article unbolded. The close paraphrasing issue has not been resolved (see my above comment), so that article cannot be bolded. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have changed both sentances cited above. One now reads: "In 1951, the resort was destroyed in a fire, but was quickly rebuilt and reopened for business." The other new sentance reads:"In 1947, researcher from Oregon State University interviewed several people who had fished at the lake in the late nineteenth century, before any non-nature fish were introduced into the lake." Are any other changes required?  ...or just unbold the lake artcle, if that's easier.--Orygun (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've pinged Nikki on this so she see it quickly. Nikki, are you ok with this change? Let's either post with both bolded if you are, if not, let's post with only one bolded. Either way let's finish this and stop dragging it out. This nom has now been here over a month. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It could still be improved, but it's probably close enough now that both can be bolded. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Pumpkin Sky  talk  11:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)