Template:Did you know nominations/The Rabbits' Wedding
- 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 Montanabw(talk) 03:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Rabbits' Wedding[edit]
- ... that in 1959 an Alabama State Senator said a children's book about two fuzzy rabbits, The Rabbits' Wedding, was "propaganda for integration and intermarriage" and tried to get the book banned? "Emily Reed; Librarian resisted racists"
Created by Sir.Leyenda (talk). Nominated by Dr Aaij (talk) at 02:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC).
- This is not a full review, but the article has some valid cleanup tags that need cleaning up before this can be DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- David Eppstein, I understand--the student is not a great proofreader. Fortunately Yngvadottir has helped out considerably, and I'd love for you to take another look at it. We can get this on the front page, and it has the potential for a large number of page views. Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- The next issue: all paragraphs in a DYK article need to have citations to reliable sources. The "rabbitswedding.weebly" web site used as the only source for two paragraphs in the "Reception" section does not look reliable to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- David Eppstein, you are correct. Plus, it was poorly written and didn't have much of substance anyway. I shuffled some stuff around; please see if you can pass it like this. Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Getting closer but still not there. Earwig reports a high score for copying against http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/05/local/me-37597 and https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/29/us/emily-w-reed-89-librarian-in-59-alabama-racial-dispute.html — most of this is properly marked and attributed quotes, but not all of it is. In particular our article's "Later in that same year, Reed again angered segregationists when she distributed a reading list including" is closely paraphrased from the LA Times' "later in 1959 she again invoked the ire of segregationists when she distributed a reading list that included", and "illustrated more than 70 books... The Rabbits' Wedding was the last" is closely paraphrased from the LA Times' "more than 70 books he illustrated ... "The Rabbits' Wedding" was the last". "Reed said she enjoyed the book, but removed it from general circulation" is closely paraphrased from "Reed said she liked the book but removed it from general circulation". And from the NY Times, "incensed Alabama segregationists by allowing a book about" closely matches "enraged Alabama segregationists by allowing a book about". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you David Eppstein. I think Sir.Leyenda was there when we covered close paraphrasing. I threw some sentences around, and may do some more. Please do have another look--and I appreciate your patience; I'm sure you didn't sign up for this much work on one single DYK review. Dr Aaij (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok. New enough, long enough, with an interesting hook (barely) within length limits. Well sourced, with a well-sourced hook. Close paraphrasing has been removed; now Earwig finds only direct quotes and proper names. QPQ done. I think it's finally ready to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Getting closer but still not there. Earwig reports a high score for copying against http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/05/local/me-37597 and https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/29/us/emily-w-reed-89-librarian-in-59-alabama-racial-dispute.html — most of this is properly marked and attributed quotes, but not all of it is. In particular our article's "Later in that same year, Reed again angered segregationists when she distributed a reading list including" is closely paraphrased from the LA Times' "later in 1959 she again invoked the ire of segregationists when she distributed a reading list that included", and "illustrated more than 70 books... The Rabbits' Wedding was the last" is closely paraphrased from the LA Times' "more than 70 books he illustrated ... "The Rabbits' Wedding" was the last". "Reed said she enjoyed the book, but removed it from general circulation" is closely paraphrased from "Reed said she liked the book but removed it from general circulation". And from the NY Times, "incensed Alabama segregationists by allowing a book about" closely matches "enraged Alabama segregationists by allowing a book about". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
