Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas D Mangelsen


 * 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 &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thomas D Mangelsen

 * ... that wildlife photographer Thomas D. Mangelsen took a photograph of Grizzly 399 he dubbed "An Icon of Motherhood" that made her the most famous mother grizzly in the world? Source: His photographs, especially the one he dubbed, "An Icon of Motherhood" made her the most famous mother grizzly, maybe the most famous grizzly, in the world.
 * Comment: This is a joint DYK with Grizzly 399.
 * Comment: This is a joint DYK with Grizzly 399.

Created by Dawnleelynn (talk). Self-nominated at 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC).
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Barry Barry (Waterloo Road) and Template:Did you know nominations/Hintersche
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Barry Barry (Waterloo Road) and Template:Did you know nominations/Hintersche


 * Comment: I have closed Template:Did you know nominations/Grizzly 399 as being a duplicate of this nomination. Any further discussion for both articles can be continued here. The review for the hook will follow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Due to a lack of time today, I will start with a preliminary review of Mangelsen's article. Right now it has several bulleted lists that work much better as prose; in addition, much of the article lacks footnotes. Finally, the wording is rather awkward in several sections; I would suggest that the article be given a copy-edit. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been very sick for a couple days. I am just feeling better today. I can work on the article today. I can also do a QPQ. I wasn't actually expecting anyone to work on this nomination until I had completed a QPQ but that's ok. When I saw you had removed the other nomination, it made perfect sense to me. Regarding the citations, every paragraph is cited, as per teaching by my mentor. You can just cite at the end of the paragraph; every line does not need cited. So, if you can explain what else needs cited? I think the only thing I missed what the indented quote which I will fix. Anyway, I will take a shot addressing the points you made in the article, thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC) These are the policies I follow for citations WP:CITEFOOT and MOS:LEADCITE which explain why the intro has none and why I cite at the end of paragraphs or lists. Unless, of course, the source changes mid-paragraph. Just FYI. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did the QPQ. Still not feeling 100% but doing my best. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Dawnleelynn, I hope you're feeling much better now. Thanks for doing the QPQ. Since this is a two-article nomination, you will need to provide a second QPQ—the requirement is for one QPQ to be supplied per nominated article. Narutolovehinata5, do you mean to continue the review, or should I try to find someone else? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I wasn't able to bring up due to a lack of time: the nominator doesn't appear to have any DYK credits so far, so technically a QPQ wasn't even required. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Narutolovehinata5, I have no idea what you're looking at, but DYKUpdateBot left six DYK credits on the nominator's talk page in 2018 alone, and there are more from 2017. QPQs are definitely required for this nominator, and one more will be needed for this nomination; I'm sure Dawnleelynn will submit another in due course now that she's aware of the need. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weird, I was using this link and no credits appeared. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, I was pretty sure I needed at least one QPQ. Thanks for clarifying. Thanks for inquirying as well; I am feeling quite better. This is my first double article hook so I wasn't sure how many QPQ were needed. I will complete one tomorrow. Thanks for checking; I appreciate it. dawnleelynn(talk) 06:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have completed another QPQ and added to the Reviewed line. btw, I looked at the DYK tool, and I saw many results. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed of both articles and the hook now that two QPQs have been supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Please note that the Endangered Species section is the same in both articles, so the edit of that section can be done first in Grizzly 399 and copied into Mangelson (as 399 is the longer one). dawnleelynn(talk) 21:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

starting DYK review for both articles in this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thomas D. Mangelsen review:


 * Again, thank you for your time and effort in reviewing. This article had a few more issues. First, I created the draft on 9/21/18. I did not expand it. I moved the draft to mainspace on 1/28/19, and then nominated it on 1/31/19. Ok, first regarding the Bbibliography, it entirely follows the policy as laid out in Manual of Style/Lists of works. You will even see an example there that is quite as long. As for the Recognition section, it was originally a list, and I broke it into prose at Narutolovehinata5's request.(Also was asked to make a similar list of honors into prose in Joni Eareckson Tada). I really can't explain why I used text from the website. I mean, I know better. I'm stumped. Anyway, I changed it. The Filmography section also follows policy and is laid out on that same page. As for the Awards and Honors names, they are proper nouns, so they cannot be copyrighted. Close paraphrasing Also, under "Substantial similarity" it says that copyright law does not protect short phrases or expressions. I'm not sure how to rephrase most of these phrases, such as, "artic alpine ecology at the University." Or "nesting grounds in Alastic and"? Anyway, I need a break so I will come back and revisit the phrases in Earwig in awhile. Thanks you did a terrific job. If you have further thoughts after what I've done so far, that would be welcome. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will provide a more detailed explanation of my concerns later tomorrow, or Thursday. Flibirigit (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Very busy today and tomorrow. I won't be able to get online until tomorrow afternoon. But at that time I will take a shot at the paraphrasing like I mentioned before (the lower case paraphrasing mentioned in the Earwig). The link didn't work but I figured out it was the comparison between the Mangelsen article and the artist link on his web site. dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 04:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Feeling better today. Recalled that I must have seen or been told somewhere that Wikipedia editors hold everyone to a higher standard than the policy I quoted regarding close paraphrasing. Anyway, I have fixed it all in Mangelsen. I even duplicated some content fixes in 399 regarding content that is shared between both articles. Should be clean now. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 23:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have rearranged the book awards and Grizzly 399 section. The prose around the awards looks improved. I will go through the rest of the paraphrasing in the morning. Please see the possessive pronoun concern I mentioned above. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are waiting on something from me, please advise. I had already addressed the pronoun issue prior to your last visit. I did a copyedit/fix of sorts today. I also wanted to bring this to your attention; this article on iconic photographer Ansel Adams. Check out how the Awards and honors section is laid out. We might consider separating the paragraphs the same way. The article is currently being reviewed for GA status; but it looks ready for an FA almost. The books section follows the same policy but also adds ISBNs. I personally don't see the point of them as it just takes you to a page where you have to search on them, no results are found. Taking the editor to a WorldCat page would be more helpful. Something to think about later after DYK.
 * I apologize for the delay in responding. I am reviewing again for paraphrasing, all other concerns I had were addressed. In the section "CBS 60 Minutes appearance", the end of the first paragraph is closely paraphrased. Please compare "He especially likes the dangerous kind. In a jungle in India, where it would be deadly to be on foot, Mangelsen climbed onto an elephant's back for a shot of a Bengal tiger -- paws red, fresh from a kill." to "Mangelsen especially likes the "dangerous kind", whether it be riding an elephant to shoot a Bengal tiger or getting too close to male Polar bears who were play fighting". The overall structure is very similar, and the sentence "Mangelsen especially likes the "dangerous kind" is verbatim. Flibirigit (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to look at the issues you and Nikki raised. However, I just wanted to address the one issue you raised about the sentence being verbatim. The dangerous kind is in quotes. So the entire sentence is not a copy. The important words are in quotes... I used Earwig before. This time, I'm going to look through it from a comparison of article to source. Apparently, Earwig did not catch everything. Also on Grizzly 399. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 16:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that Earwig will highlight direct word-for-word copying, but will overlook inexact copying that may still be close enough to be problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Ha, I probably should asked you to look these over after I finished the drafts. Looks like I still have work to do to get all the way there. I did so well with Hailey Kinsel. I will look at the encyclopedic tone too, like you mentioned. Your help these past months has been invaluable. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 16:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did a source to source comparison on both articles, found a few things. Also some tone issues. One issue I'm not sure enough was in CBS 60 Minutes in Mangelsen. For the bits about riding the tiger to shoot the elephant and the playfighting polar bears. I felt like I just made a really short summary out of what was there, just taking facts and not copying any creative words that could be considered copyright. I don't know any other way to say he rode an elephant to take a picture of a Bengal tiger... Could you check it out? Also if you have time to a surface check of the articles, that would be cool. No need to open up source... I changed the sentence I wrote: Mangelsen especially likes the "dangerous kind." which was accused of being a direct copy to the actual version from the article and put quotes around the whole thing to be safe. Which is "He especially likes the dangerous kind." Also, Flibirigit, I removed his brother from the article. I initially wrote the sentence so that Mangelsen and his brother were the subject. My parentheses was not a good solution, and I don't really feel that adding him at the end of the sentence as a dependent clause solves it eloquently either. No one will miss him anyway. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 21:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine. I will look at it later tonight. Flibirigit (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I like that the awards were split up. I see has done some editing too. I notice there is now a cite error at the bottom? Flibirigit (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please check this diff which caused the cite error. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that citation area. I had no idea. Regarding that the awards were split up I can't take credit. That's just one of many great ideas I got from iconic photographer Ansel Adams's article which is going through a GA review. Sorry about those museum edits. I understood when it was a fragment by itself to delete. But I didn't write it up clearly enough as to why it belongs with the Vital Signs exhibit. Doesn't it make sense yet? I am not completely stubborn. If you still feel that fragment of the exhibit moving through the US and Canada and the 2nd San Diego Museum aren't clear enough to be listed yet, then go ahead and remove them. In future, I will find enough support for them before including them again. As you can tell, I have worked with Nikkimaria for quite awhile, since last summer actually. She has made changes to both articles; they are the better for them. Also, I have asked my mentor's friend Ser Amantio di Nicolao to look over the categories, which he will do later. He's probably the greatest expert on them in WP. I think I have covered all of the issues now. I may do some minor copyediting from time to time otherwise. Oh yes and sorry for the issues, so many, my DYKs usually aren't so difficult. I can only say it was because I chose to write in an area that I have little expertise in. So thanks for your patience and for bearing with me, no pun intended. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 21:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, it looks better. Flibirigit (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Grizzly 399 review:


 * Thank you for this review. I appreciate your time and effort. I corrected the issue of close paraphrasing you pointed out in the Endangered species list section. I believe that was the only issue in this article. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 21:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This article looks good now. Flibirigit (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was asked to look at this nom, and I think some of the paraphrasing is still too close to the sources - for example, footnotes 2 and 4 in the Grizzly article. This has also resulted in some tone issues, eg "She will never know that saved her life". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The tone is this paragraph needs some work. In hindsight it seems awkaward that "She showed her cubs how to cross roads like people do", but later one of her cubs is killed crossing the road. Flibirigit (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC) "Grizzly 399 was not interested in people, despite spending more time with them, she just wanted to avoid an area she felt was more dangerous. She studied people and their habits. She showed her cubs how to cross roads like people do. Many bears are killed trying to cross the road. She taught her cubs to loiter near humans during the fall elk hunt so they could consume the elk guts the hunters left behind. The extra food helped them get through winter. She also had two unexpected encounters with people where she chose not to kill them, thereby unknowingly avoiding euthanasia."


 * I am satisfied with the recent changes to Grizzly 399. The tone is improved, and is also more succinct. I made one small change with the repetitive dates in the Infobox. Flibirigit (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The article also says that the cub's death was investigated as a hit-and-run. So, even if the cub looked both ways, if he was accidentally or intentionally hit, it wouldn't have mattered. This is backed up by multiple sources, even though I only needed one source to use in the article. And seriously, this is an animal we are talking about. Would they be perfect in their "crossing the road technique"? <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 06:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

both articles and ALT0 are good to go now. Flibirigit (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you, the articles are much improved due to you and Nikki.I'm glad the hook is good too. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 17:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)