Template:Did you know nominations/Textile industry in Aachen
- 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 Bruxton (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Textile industry in Aachen
- ... that hot springs at Aachen nurtured its 1000-year-old textile industry? Sources: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2115758, https://archive.org/details/Encyclopedia_Of_Textile_Finishing/page/n5/mode/1up
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Done Somebody Wrong
- Comment: Article is at 5x now, expansion began 141 edits ago on January 1, 2023
Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 06:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Five times expanded within time, all points check out, ready to go. Moonraker (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Moonraker, did you see the discussion of the previous nomination of the article at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 189#Aachen fine cloth (prep 3) and do you think all the issues were resolved? I think the nomination may still fail WP:DYKSG D7, which says that the article "should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress." TSventon (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- @TSventon, Moonraker Hi! Wikipedia:There is no deadline Although Wikipedia itself is not working to a deadline, processes and WikiProjects within it often have deadlines – typically about one week. For example: The Did you know project will only consider submissions of articles that have been either created, expanded at least fivefold, or brought to good article status "within the past seven days" I tried my best to resolve the issues, and it is now expanded to the desired level. Each Wikipedia article is in a process of evolution and is likely to continue growing., WP:DYKSG D7 There are no unexpanded headers. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do right now. Regards RV (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- RAJIVVASUDEV, I understand that you needed to submit your DYK nomination within seven days, but I am asking Moonraker whether they are aware of and have considered the issues which emerged after the first nomination. I have noted on the article talk page that there seems to be close paraphrasing of copyrighted content in the article, so please could you respond to that. TSventon (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
: The previous issues do seem to have been resolved, with the new hook. It is an article about the textile industry, and not the wool cloth, but in any event there is enough now about the cloth. My main quibble is that in the article the history of the industry seems to just trail away to nothing at the turn of the 20th century, but perhaps that is what happened? There really should be some coverage of the 20th century. My next quibble is that we see text in the lead which is not summarising anything in the main body, but it is cited. I took the view that we do not expect every DYK article to be a GA, and it will be improved in due course. TSventon, your points on close paraphrasing have made me put up the doubtful symbol. When I used Earwig, I got a zero-per-cent result, but by focussing on particular sources you have shown us that RV really must fix these problems before this can be approved. Will someone please ping me if that happens? As we are putting this on hold, maybe we could also have at least a paragraph taking us up to the end of the textile industry in Aachen — if it has ended, which isn’t clear at all. Moonraker (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Moonraker, I have only looked at one source, so there may be other problematic sources in the article. The Earwig tool isn't able to access Jstor and won't always detect close paraphrasing. I have pinged contributors to the previous discussion, where the article was described as badly written, which may or may not mean it didn't meet DYK criteria. I think the paraphrasing is an example of poor writing which also breaks DYK rules. There was a question about whether the article explained the current status of the cloth and I agree that the expanded article should cover the current status of the industry. The German article de:Geschichte der Tuchindustrie in Aachen covers the more recent history, but does not have as many inline citations as en Wikipedia needs. TSventon (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith, SL93, Bruxton, RAJIVVASUDEV, Roxy the dog, EEng, Chipmunkdavis, Theleekycauldron, and Schwede66:, the article Aachen fine cloth is now Textile industry in Aachen and has been renominated for DYK. Are there any issues from the previous discussion that you think need to be resolved before the nomination is approved? TSventon (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know about the technicalities of the renomination, but I like this hook. EEng 22:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- @RoySmith, SL93, Bruxton, BD2412, TSventon, EEng, Chipmunkdavis, Theleekycauldron, and Schwede66: Dear all, the article is about history and the chronology of events, and facts would not allow for more rewording in some specific cases. Unlike the German article [:de:Geschichte der Tuchindustrie in Aachen], the article has proper inline citations. DYK provides the "earwig" to check Copy Vio, and this is where it "qualifies." I and Moonraker could not find any trace of a copying violation. though it is perceived. If I check the way the article is assessed, half of the articles on Wikipedia would require a reassessment. So, we can make a conscious response [not compulsive], or you can "recommend software" that I can test before resubmitting. Please advise. Thanks RV (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- RV, I see you are talking to TSventon at Talk:Textile industry in Aachen#Close paraphrasing. It isn’t an answer to link to the version of Earwig that finds nothing. We do need to get away from copyvio, you will need to do some work on it. Maybe TSventon can give you some links to use to check your progress with all the sources relied on. There is no great urgency about it, we can let you have several days, if you need them. Moonraker (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've given the article a once-over. That included placing two
{{cn}}tags. Where it talks about "Hansa", I believe that refers to the Hanseatic League and if so, I'd use that term (much better known as that) and wikilink it. From my perspective, the missing citations stop this from getting approved at this stage. Schwede66 00:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC) - I have added a citation needed tag for clothmaking going back to Charlemagne, while the source adds "supposedly". I hope I have explained sufficiently about close paraphrasing, if not I may have to ask for more expert help. TSventon (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Close paraphrasing is permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. This may be the case with simple statements of fact. It is acceptable to use a technical term such as "The War of the Spanish Succession" or "Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)" when the term is almost always used by sources that discuss the subject, and when such sources rarely use any other term. Anyhow thanks for the help. The mentioned page "numbers" in your details on the talk page refer to [this source]. As per you Earwig's failure was caused by an inability to access JSTOR. Am I right? Let me copy edit it without losing the facts. Thanks for the help. RV (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- RAJIVVASUDEV, I accept that there are sometimes only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. I think "Aachen was the main woolen center of Rhineland" is fine, for example. You have the right link for the source I looked at, which Earwig is unable to access. Can you let me know when you have finished rewriting the passages I queried? TSventon (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- TSventon I removed the "citation needed" tag from the fact that people have been making clothes since the time of Charlemagne. User:Schwede66 The sources are also added with the tags you specified. Thanks RV (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- TSventon, Moonraker I have made the necessary changes. Kindly review and advise. Thanks RV (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- RAJIVVASUDEV, Moonraker, thank you RV, I think the paraphrasing I found has been dealt with, so I am happy for the nomination to be approved again. You will see that I have tweaked a couple of sentences.
- I checked the new reference for clothmaking going back to Charlemagne and the pages don't seem to mention Aachen. Did I miss something? TSventon (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- TSventon, Moonraker I have made the necessary changes. Kindly review and advise. Thanks RV (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Close paraphrasing is permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. This may be the case with simple statements of fact. It is acceptable to use a technical term such as "The War of the Spanish Succession" or "Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)" when the term is almost always used by sources that discuss the subject, and when such sources rarely use any other term. Anyhow thanks for the help. The mentioned page "numbers" in your details on the talk page refer to [this source]. As per you Earwig's failure was caused by an inability to access JSTOR. Am I right? Let me copy edit it without losing the facts. Thanks for the help. RV (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've given the article a once-over. That included placing two
- RV, I see you are talking to TSventon at Talk:Textile industry in Aachen#Close paraphrasing. It isn’t an answer to link to the version of Earwig that finds nothing. We do need to get away from copyvio, you will need to do some work on it. Maybe TSventon can give you some links to use to check your progress with all the sources relied on. There is no great urgency about it, we can let you have several days, if you need them. Moonraker (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- @RoySmith, SL93, Bruxton, BD2412, TSventon, EEng, Chipmunkdavis, Theleekycauldron, and Schwede66: Dear all, the article is about history and the chronology of events, and facts would not allow for more rewording in some specific cases. Unlike the German article [:de:Geschichte der Tuchindustrie in Aachen], the article has proper inline citations. DYK provides the "earwig" to check Copy Vio, and this is where it "qualifies." I and Moonraker could not find any trace of a copying violation. though it is perceived. If I check the way the article is assessed, half of the articles on Wikipedia would require a reassessment. So, we can make a conscious response [not compulsive], or you can "recommend software" that I can test before resubmitting. Please advise. Thanks RV (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for all the efforts, RV and TSventon, I am now reinstating the confirmed symbol. I have taken the liberty of changing the caption to say what the image is, RV might just like to check that. Moonraker (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Now we have lost the citation for a 1000-year-history, as the reference to Charlemagne is only supposition, so we can’t say that in the hook. RV, would you please suggest an ALT1 that is definitely in line with the reliable sources? The Aachen thermal springs is okay, but we need to stick to what an RS says about when they came into use by the textile industry. Moonraker (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- ALT1...that the hot springs of Aachen helped the city's growth through the operation of spas, as well as the manufacturing of industries such as needle-making and the textile industry?" Source:Source: https://www.latimes.com/la-tr-aachen3aug03-story.html. Moonraker Kindly check. Thanks RV (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- The main hook is okay again, with the H. K. Rouette citation that someone had deleted, as that talks about a thousand year history. It seems a little nebulous, but it is cited. ALT1 seems a little confused. Moonraker (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)