Template:Did you know nominations/Welcome to the Jungle (Neon Jungle album)

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 (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Jungle (Neon Jungle album)[edit]

(

)

... that Welcome to the Jungle contains a cover of a Banks song not officially sanctioned by her?

5x expanded by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 08:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC).

Article has had its prose portion expanded at least fivefold and is long enough. However, almost the entire prose portion of the article consists of quotations of non-free text, which may be a close paraphrasing issue. Also, the first section ("Singles") is not cited by an inline source. Another issue is the presence of a Controversy section, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The singles were there when I got there. All I've done is taken them out as they are already present in the infobox and other places. As for the Controversy section, it is now called "Cover versions". What does the article look like without the quotations?--Laun chba ller 07:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content, an article that is almost entirely taken from other sources is not appropriate. Either paraphrase or trim some of quotes or add more content so the quotes don't take up as much space. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Blockquotes have been placed where appropriate, and the prose character count now in the mid-1300s, below the minimum required. Breaking up the quotes into more chunks won't make them less unoriginal; proper paraphrasing is the way to go, as it reduces the number of characters quoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've paraphrased the first quote slightly as I feel that information on the two highlights should adjoin each other, and the third quote I've paraphrased as well.--Laun chba ller 14:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There are two ways of looking at the problem of overquotation: from the article and from the source. From the side of the article, overquoting creates stylistic issues and makes it difficult to meet DYK's requirement for original prose, and I would tend to think that this article wouldn't quite qualify there. What I'm a bit more concerned about here, though, is the source side: when you have a source as short as that Guardian review, your quotation represents over 50% of the source, and that's a non-free content problem. Similarly, the Stoke Sentinel quote is nearly 50% of that review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Reiterating the earlier icon, and have tagged the article. Slight paraphrasing won't cut it; this article needs a major cut in quoted material if it's to qualify for DYK, and it needs to happen soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just pillaged the contents of the Critical reception blockquotes, which yielded very little. I haven't yet looked at the Cover versions sections - should that be trimmed as well?--Laun chba ller 18:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed Cover versions myself. As was true with the other section, the quote from Banks was almost the entire Facebook post (non-free content problem), and really wasn't needed, so except for a few words it's gone. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Launchballer, the article has two bare urls, which are not allowed in DYK-nominated articles. Please let me know when you've fixed it, and I'll call for a new reviewer; it needs to be done within the week. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Three, actually, but two have been fixed by Reflinks; how should Zobbel be fixed?--Laun chba ller 00:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it; I've run into them before. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Full review needed, now that other issues have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If it makes a difference to anyone, the hook is sourced by a Facebook post, and I don't think that's an appropriate source. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Facebook is an acceptable source in this instance as that was where Banks made her statement on her official page. I just looked at several news stories reporting the "unauthorised cover version issue" and they all quoted that same Facebook statement, without further comment from Banks.

My only minor qualm was the general structure, which I have addressed by moving the "Cover versions" section up the page. "Track listing" is now below it, as per the usual style for album articles.

The hook is effective and reflects an unusual and ongoing angle, to an issue of interest to many people, i.e. intellectual property.

Launchballer does not mention reviewing another nom, but is still a relatively new editor, with no more than three DYK self-noms = no review required.

So I think it's good to go. Grant | Talk 04:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)