Template:Did you know nominations/Walter Kenrick Fisher
- 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 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Walter Kenrick Fisher[edit]
... that zoologist Walter Kenrick Fisher named a species of peanut worm after author John Steinbeck despite being "incompatible" with Steinbeck's friend Ed Ricketts?http://www.bemon.loven.gu.se/petymol.ef.html- ALT1:... that the marine biologist Walter Kenrick Fisher illustrated the book The Salinas: Upside Down River written by his wife Anne B. Fisher? http://www.siue.edu/lovejoylibrary/tas/Rivers_spouses.htm
- Reviewed: Conference of Dresden (1812)
Created by Quetzal1964 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC).
New enough and long enough. QPQ done. However, Earwig finds many instances of copying and close paraphrasing from https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v075n02/p0131-p0133.pdf. To pick two eamples out of many, our article has "served as associate editor of the Condor in 1901 and 1902, and he was its editor from December, 1902, until the end of 1905"; source "served as Associate Editor of the Condor in 1901 and 1902, and as Editor from December, 1902, until the end of 1905". And our article has "in addition to his invertebrate work he published papers on birds in The Auk, the Condor and in various publications of the United States Government"; source "Although the greater part of his published writings deal with invertebrates, Fisher published a number of papers on birds in the Auk, the Condor, and in various publications of the U.S. Government". All contributions to Wikipedia need to be in the editor's own words, not copied from other sources. As such this cannot appear in DYK and may warrant additional action (stubbing down or even deletion) to remove the copyvio. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- David Eppstein The apparent copyvio was mainly due to the list of publications, which is difficult to put in your own words. The article has now been further edited to resolve the issues you highlighted and the list of publications has been removed. Earwig now states "Violation Unlikely 32.0% confidence".Quetzal1964 (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- The examples I pointed out were not from the publication list. And plenty of copying is still present. Our article: "He was an assistant in the Zoology Department from 1902 to 1905, an instructor from 1905 to 1909, assistant professor from 1909 to 1925 and professor from 1925 until his retirement in 1943." The source: "He was assistant in zoology from 1902 to 1905, instructor from 1905 to 1909, ... assistant professor in the latter year to professor in 1925. He retired in 1943." Our article: "Initially, his interest lay more in the field of botany and initially he worked with he worked with William Russell Dudley. However, he was soon to show a preference for zoology, particularly invertebrate zoology." The source: "botany at first interested him and he worked for a time with Professor Dudley. But he soon turned to zoology, especially the invertebrates." Our article: "the richness of the collections he was able to study while on these voyages, and from other sources, made him decide to undertake to specialise in echinoderms." The source: "The wealth of collections from these cruises, and other sources, led him into specializing in echinoderms" This is not exact wording, but it is still far too much close paraphrasing to be acceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein I have reworded the "offending" passages, thank you for your constructive comments.Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- The examples I pointed out were not from the publication list. And plenty of copying is still present. Our article: "He was an assistant in the Zoology Department from 1902 to 1905, an instructor from 1905 to 1909, assistant professor from 1909 to 1925 and professor from 1925 until his retirement in 1943." The source: "He was assistant in zoology from 1902 to 1905, instructor from 1905 to 1909, ... assistant professor in the latter year to professor in 1925. He retired in 1943." Our article: "Initially, his interest lay more in the field of botany and initially he worked with he worked with William Russell Dudley. However, he was soon to show a preference for zoology, particularly invertebrate zoology." The source: "botany at first interested him and he worked for a time with Professor Dudley. But he soon turned to zoology, especially the invertebrates." Our article: "the richness of the collections he was able to study while on these voyages, and from other sources, made him decide to undertake to specialise in echinoderms." The source: "The wealth of collections from these cruises, and other sources, led him into specializing in echinoderms" This is not exact wording, but it is still far too much close paraphrasing to be acceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- David Eppstein The apparent copyvio was mainly due to the list of publications, which is difficult to put in your own words. The article has now been further edited to resolve the issues you highlighted and the list of publications has been removed. Earwig now states "Violation Unlikely 32.0% confidence".Quetzal1964 (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. Approving ALT1 but striking ALT0 because I think it is too complex a situation for a hook. The article is neutral and the close paraphrasing seems to have been satisfactorily resolved. QPQ has been done, so this is good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
