Template:Did you know nominations/John J. Coit
- 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) 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
John J. Coit[edit]
John J. Coit shows one of his locomotives
... that John J. Coit, who built and operated miniature railways, died when his locomotive ran into a cow?
- Reviewed: Dudou
Created by NearEMPTiness (talk). Self-nominated at 08:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC).
@NearEMPTiness: I am very confused about this DYK. The heading and template at the top of the page suggest that this is a multinom, but the actual hook suggested has a bold link to only one article. If you are intending to do a multinom, you would need a hook that has bold links to all the railways, as well as 4 more QPQ reviews (multi-nominations require one QPQ review per article). Pppery (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, the proposed hook has a picture, but does not include the (pictured) text that is requires for hooks with pictures. Pppery (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- ALT 1 ... that John J. Coit (pictured), who built and operated miniature railways, died when his locomotive ran into a cow?
- @Pppery: Thanks and sorry for having caused confusion. I updated the headline and propose an alternative teaser.NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @NearEMPTiness: Thanks for clarifying about the multinom situation. I have struck the original hook and modified the heading at the top of the page accordingly. However, the picture given is more prominently about the locomotive then the man, and thus maybe the (pictured) (which needs to be in italics anyway) should be moved to be after
his locomotive
rather than after the man's name. Pppery (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)- Comment: unless the picture is of the actual locomotive that later ran into the cow, then moving the "(pictured)" to after "his locomotive" would not be appropriate. A complete review of the nomination is also still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Now, on to the article. It is new enough and long enough. No apparent issues with QPQ review. However, there appears to be some copyvios/close paraphrasing from the third source (duplication detector report), especially in the
Fatal Accident on Gatún–Culebra Labor Train
section. Pppery (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)- Additionally, the section about patents is completely uncited. Pppery (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pppery: This is not the locomotive that collided with the cow. Thus I modified the caption in the photo of the teaser. The article about the accident has been published before 1921 and is thus not protected by copyright. I added links to the patents by now. Therefore, I think the article is ready to go. NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@NearEMPTiness: It might make sense to cite the newspaper using {{cite news}} and/or link to the patents using <ref></ref>s rather than external links. But none of those suggestions prevent the article from appearing on the main page. Good to go. Pppery (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pppery: This is not the locomotive that collided with the cow. Thus I modified the caption in the photo of the teaser. The article about the accident has been published before 1921 and is thus not protected by copyright. I added links to the patents by now. Therefore, I think the article is ready to go. NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Additionally, the section about patents is completely uncited. Pppery (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Now, on to the article. It is new enough and long enough. No apparent issues with QPQ review. However, there appears to be some copyvios/close paraphrasing from the third source (duplication detector report), especially in the
- Comment: unless the picture is of the actual locomotive that later ran into the cow, then moving the "(pictured)" to after "his locomotive" would not be appropriate. A complete review of the nomination is also still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @NearEMPTiness: Thanks for clarifying about the multinom situation. I have struck the original hook and modified the heading at the top of the page accordingly. However, the picture given is more prominently about the locomotive then the man, and thus maybe the (pictured) (which needs to be in italics anyway) should be moved to be after
Hook removed from prep5, discussion reopened. The hook fact (and that whole section) are no longer in the article. You may not copy public domain text (the source presumably is PD) like that; you need to either quote it, or otherwise clearly indicate that the text isn't yours but copied from somewhere. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Fram (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fram: I originally pointed out the copying, but neither me nor the nominator realised that it is not OK to copy public domain text. Pppery (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pppery: and @Fram: Thank you for your vigilance and patience. I have now re-written the paragraph, and think that the article is now ready to be presented on the main page. NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @NearEMPTiness: Assuming your edit summary when you re-added content to the section was correct, you are still plagiarizing (but this time from a different source) per the attribution requirements in WP:Translation. Pppery (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pppery: Sorry for having caused confusion, but in this case no import of the authors list is required, because I am the author of that part of the German article. NearEMPTiness (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @NearEMPTiness: It would still make sense to put a {{translated}} on the talk page of the article in question. But I will just do that instead of holding up this DYK review. Otherwise, good to go. Pppery (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pppery: Sorry for having caused confusion, but in this case no import of the authors list is required, because I am the author of that part of the German article. NearEMPTiness (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pppery: and @Fram: Thank you for your vigilance and patience. I have now re-written the paragraph, and think that the article is now ready to be presented on the main page. NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I came by to promote this, but the last sentence requires a source. The article could also benefit from a copy edit. @NearEMPTiness:, @Pppery: could you take a look? Vanamonde (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Um, Vanamonde, I fail to see how either of your concerns prevent this from appearing on the Main Page. WP:DYKSG#D5 requires onbe citation per paragraph (which the last paragraph has), not per sentence and this is neither a BLP nor a particularly controversial claim. On the topic of the copy edit, articles do not need to have perfect grammar to be features on the main page. Pppery (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pppery: The grammar is not preventing me from promoting this; it is merely a side comment. The citation issue is the hangup. The supplementary guideline does not in any way say that uncited claims are okay: a claim not cited is a failure of WP:V, and possibly of WP:NOR if it isn't in fact correct. Therefore, it needs to be fixed. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: I have now added a reference to a Statement by Ed Kelley, a BJWRR volunteer 2000-2002.NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pppery: The grammar is not preventing me from promoting this; it is merely a side comment. The citation issue is the hangup. The supplementary guideline does not in any way say that uncited claims are okay: a claim not cited is a failure of WP:V, and possibly of WP:NOR if it isn't in fact correct. Therefore, it needs to be fixed. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Um, Vanamonde, I fail to see how either of your concerns prevent this from appearing on the Main Page. WP:DYKSG#D5 requires onbe citation per paragraph (which the last paragraph has), not per sentence and this is neither a BLP nor a particularly controversial claim. On the topic of the copy edit, articles do not need to have perfect grammar to be features on the main page. Pppery (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)