Template:Did you know nominations/William Dixson

Withdrawn

William Dixson

 * ... that Sir William Dixson (pictured) bequeathed over 20,000 items of early Australiana to the State Library of New South Wales?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Leontovych)
 * Comment: Moved from userspace drafts on 12/12/12

Created/expanded by Whiteghost.ink (talk). Self nom at 07:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg - Length and Date check out, offline ref accepted AGF. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg This article contains no fewer than five identical phrases between 19 and 23 words long, all of which are from this source, which is copyrighted. This level of duplication is quite worrying; I'll be asking the advice of Nikkimaria as to what should be done next. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to reformulate information that comes in sentences that are essentially lists - for example, of formats or places or map types. It did not seem necessary to run the risk of introducing errors by reformulating such basic list information when the source is clear and other sources are provided to support the most findable one. Nevertheless, I have put some sections in quotes and rewritten some sentences to remove any concerns. Information in the article was checked with the library's curators and also satisfied the librarians. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To my eye, there is still more that could be done in a few significant places, but as noted earlier, I'll defer to Nikkimaria on this topic. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, I've gone through and adjusted several sections to better indicate direct quotes or paraphrase (diff). I'm very happy to receive specific feedback and make changes to improve the quality of articles - if you'd be willing to point out what you're referring to when you say that "more could be done". I'm acutely aware of quality on the encyclopedia, and I put a lot of care into the research and historical accuracy of my writing, which is why I really find the DYK system frustrating and extremely disheartening in its apparent double standards. One of my previous DKY attempts here) was given IMO a "good article" level of reviewing and eventually rejected even after I responded to all the (valid) critiques. Yet I regularly see very short, sports-related articles (including BLPs!) with appalling prose and sloppy footnoting get approved no problem. I am happy to have a high standard set to my nominations, so long as I get a chance to address the feedback, but wish this standard was applied consistently to all DYKs. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Whiteghost, I'm seeing some close paraphrasing from several sources here. Compare for example "but decided to give "special attention" to pictures when he learned that the income from the Mitchell bequest to the library could not be spent on them" vs "but when he learned that the income from David Scott Mitchell's bequest to the Public Library of New South Wales could not be spent on pictures, he 'decided to give special attention to them'" - two clauses have been switched, but otherwise the structure is identical and the wording nearly so. This problem also persists with material cited to the source BlueMoonset mentions above, so I agree that some significant adjustment is still needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Article needs more work. I withdraw its nomination. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)