Template:Did you know nominations/Sheng Zhongguo
- 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) 06:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sheng Zhongguo[edit]
- ... that Chinese violinist Sheng Zhongguo was named by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as one of the world's greatest artists? Source: The Strad
Created by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, well written, and properly sourced. QPQ done. But Earwig found what looks to me like too much close paraphrasing from https://www.thestrad.com/chinese-violinist-zhongguo-sheng-dies-aged-77/8174.article (e.g. source for the hook claim "In 1980 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation listed him as one of ‘the world’s greatest artists" vs our article changed only from active to passive "In 1980, he was listed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as one of the world's greatest artists.") and from http://en.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/11/content_43033.htm (source: "His father, Sheng Xue, was a famous violinist and professor who taught at the Central Conservatory of Music and Nanjing Arts Institute. His mother, Zhu Bing, majored in vocal music."; our article, "His father, Sheng Xue, was a well known violinist and professor of Central Conservatory of Music and Nanjing Arts Institute. His mother Zhu Bing was a vocalist.") And the incredibly boring hook conveys no useful information about the subject and probably violates WP:PEACOCK. Can't we find something more distinctive to say about him than "he played really well"? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: Thanks for your review. The close paraphrasing is mainly of proper names and set phrases. I've put "one of the world's greatest artists" in quotation marks and edited the other sentence as well, please check again. I disagree with your "peacock" comment. WP:PEACOCK refers to "Words such as these are often used without attribution" while the hook is clearly attributed. In fact, WP:PEACOCK uses the sentence "Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century" as an example of factual statements. And there's a huge difference between playing well and being named by a major broadcaster as one of the world's greatest artists, an honour that is prominently mentioned by most of his obituaries. I can't imagine how you can treat them as the same. -Zanhe (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- So you disagree that the close paraphrasing that I specifically identified is a problem and that the bad hook is bad. I suppose that's a response, but it's not one that's going to lead me to pass your hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I thought I addressed the close paraphrasing issue with edits including putting the set phrase in quotes. I disagreed with your assessment of the hook as uninteresting/peacock. Please read my reasoning and reconsider. -Zanhe (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is not the set phrase, it is that you are constructing the article by taking sentences from the source and making minor changes to individual words while repeating the same concepts in the same order. That is close paraphrasing and it is not ok. You need to internalize the concepts involved and then present them in your own order, in your own language, not merely by making cosmetic changes to someone else's writing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- The sentences highlighted by Earwig were made of long proper names and phrases strung together with simple words. I've further edited the article and deleted some info ("professor of Central Conservatory of Music and Nanjing Arts Institute") which I don't think I can paraphrase further without making it sound unnatural. Earwig now reports 5.7%. Please check again. Thanks. -Zanhe (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is not the set phrase, it is that you are constructing the article by taking sentences from the source and making minor changes to individual words while repeating the same concepts in the same order. That is close paraphrasing and it is not ok. You need to internalize the concepts involved and then present them in your own order, in your own language, not merely by making cosmetic changes to someone else's writing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I thought I addressed the close paraphrasing issue with edits including putting the set phrase in quotes. I disagreed with your assessment of the hook as uninteresting/peacock. Please read my reasoning and reconsider. -Zanhe (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- So you disagree that the close paraphrasing that I specifically identified is a problem and that the bad hook is bad. I suppose that's a response, but it's not one that's going to lead me to pass your hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: Thanks for your review. The close paraphrasing is mainly of proper names and set phrases. I've put "one of the world's greatest artists" in quotation marks and edited the other sentence as well, please check again. I disagree with your "peacock" comment. WP:PEACOCK refers to "Words such as these are often used without attribution" while the hook is clearly attributed. In fact, WP:PEACOCK uses the sentence "Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century" as an example of factual statements. And there's a huge difference between playing well and being named by a major broadcaster as one of the world's greatest artists, an honour that is prominently mentioned by most of his obituaries. I can't imagine how you can treat them as the same. -Zanhe (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: I've edited the article to address your concerns. Did you see my message from a week ago? -Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- It still seems very similar to the sources to me and you still haven't proposed an interesting-enough hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It appears we're in disagreement. Requesting third opinion. -Zanhe (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: An article may be passed by Earwig and still be full of close paraphrasing/copyvio. Otherwise we'd rely on the tool and have no need for time-consuming checks by human editors. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Reidgreg: I've done hundreds of DYKs and am well aware of that. As noted above, I've already reworded or removed information deemed as close paraphrasing by the original reviewer even though I did not completely agree with his assessment. If there are still paraphrasing issues remaining, it'd be really helpful if you could point them out so I can fix them. Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: An article may be passed by Earwig and still be full of close paraphrasing/copyvio. Otherwise we'd rely on the tool and have no need for time-consuming checks by human editors. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- At this point IMO the paraphrasing in the article is not of concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not going to officially approve this, but I personally think the hook is more than interesting enough. Not all hooks have to be absolutely spectacular; they just have to be interesting to a broad audience and something that the audience would be fascinated with and want to know more about. I think this easily fits that description; the fact that the national broadcaster of Australia called him one of the greatest artists in the world is quite significant and very interesting, imo; certainly good enough for DYK. As mentioned above, the close paraphrasing issues have been fixed, so I would definitely support approving this.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Adding a second opinion here on the hook. Personally I think it is interesting that a Chinese artist being called one of the greatest artists by a foreign country (in this case, Australia) is interesting, because of the contrast of places. It would not have worked if it was say a Canadian artist and an American broadcaster, or vice-versa. (Disclosure: I was referred to this discussion by SkyGazer on Discord; due to this, I am refraining from approving this, merely leaving my two cents). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not going to officially approve this, but I personally think the hook is more than interesting enough. Not all hooks have to be absolutely spectacular; they just have to be interesting to a broad audience and something that the audience would be fascinated with and want to know more about. I think this easily fits that description; the fact that the national broadcaster of Australia called him one of the greatest artists in the world is quite significant and very interesting, imo; certainly good enough for DYK. As mentioned above, the close paraphrasing issues have been fixed, so I would definitely support approving this.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- At this point IMO the paraphrasing in the article is not of concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
AGF previous review for new enough, long enough, well written, properly sourced, and QPQ. I am finding no copyvio in the current article. Earwig comes up with absolutely nothing other than quotations and proper names. I am satisfied the hook is interesting enough for DYK, possibly very interesting for Chinese readers. This isn't the 100 most shocking facts page. SpinningSpark 17:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
