Template:Did you know nominations/2013 Grand Prix of Baltimore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Grand Prix of Baltimore[edit]

Created by ZappaOMati (talk). Self nominated at 15:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC).

  • The first hook doesn't appear in the article, but I have added a link in the article to "IndyCar Series" because it appears in the hook and not the article - if you want to use that, there's no further problems in that department. Also, there are a few sentences that aren't directly referenced; most glaringly, the last one of the opening paragraph and a few in the start of the paragraphs in the "Race" section. Otherwise it seems fine, but as it is my first review I'm going to have a more seasoned reviewer have a look at it as well.--Launchballer 07:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg A review should always mention the DYK basic requirements. According to DYKcheck, the article was created on September 11, 2013, so it was new when nominated; and it has 3092 prose characters, well above the 1500 minimum. The QPQ was done. Since this is for DYK, having a few sentences not directly referenced is not an issue by DYK standards (it only would be if there were direct quotes in any of the sentences, or said sentences contained hook facts). The rule of thumb is that each paragraph should have at least one reference, unless it's a fictional plot section, or introducing a series of paragraphs that are sourced. However, both hooks have problems, which would be enough to prevent approval at this time. The article could stand to be clearer: I couldn't tell, in the intro, whether the scheduling conflicts meant that this would be the last Grand Prix race of the season, or the last Grand Prix in Baltimore. (And is it indeed gone from Baltimore forever, or merely not for the foreseeable future?)
It's odd to say, as ALT1 does, that someone broke a tie for 14th, since that just means that they've taken undisputed possession of 14th and relegated the others to 15th. When I read the article, it says something different: that Dixon broke the tie with Sullivan and is now tied with Johncock for 14th. (I've struck this hook.) The problem is, the article's phrasing of "breaking a tie with Danny Sullivan and tying with Gordon Johncock for 14th on the all-time IndyCar Series poles list" is almost identical to the cited source's "broke a tie with Danny Sullivan and is tied with Gordon Johncock for 14th on the all-time pole-winning list": this is overly close paraphrasing, and not acceptable. The article needs to be gone over closely by its author to ensure that no other examples of close paraphrasing exist; this is not the only instance. I've also struck the original hook: while math is allowed, having five cautions from lap 41 to lap 65 covers a total of 25 laps, not 24. (19 of those 25 laps were run under caution; there were only three single laps and one three-lap stretch under the green flag.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Well, I rewrote the phrasing on that to "passing Danny Sullivan and tying with Gordon Johncock for 14th all-time on the IndyCar Series pole list. Also, I ran the page through the copyvio check, which reported 0% confidence of a copyvio. To replace the struck hooks, I present alternative alternates: NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 16:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Copyvio check is very unreliable, in my experience, and cannot be counted on to turn up clear copyvios somewhere on the web. (It doesn't check any of the cited sources; it does something else out there on the web, and I'm not sure what.) Duplication detector is far better: you compare one source to the article, and strings of identical words show up. Of course, this is not the whole picture, because close paraphrasing involves minor changes of words, but it helps find likely sentences. Unfortunately, your change still leaves "tying with Gordon Johncock for 14th all-time on the IndyCar Series pole list" very close to the source's "is tied with Gordon Johncock for 14th on the all-time pole-winning list". (Simply shifting words around doesn't reduce close paraphrasing; what's needed is putting the information in your own words.) This remains unacceptable, and doesn't even address the other close paraphrasing I mentioned. As for the new hooks, ALT2 looks pretty good, but ALT3 uses "Grand Prix of Baltimore" twice, which is overly repetitive. Normally, I'd suggest replacing the second instance with "Baltimore race" or something along those lines, but the source used says it won't be run in 2014 and 2015 "and likely beyond", but "likely" doesn't mean "never", so "final running" simply isn't supported. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: I reworded it ONCE again. FYI, the close paraphrasing was merely a coincidence when I created the page, since I couldn't really find any synonyms that could substitute "tied". Besides, there were little concerns about the others, since, as I said, purely a coincidence as I failed to find any other way to write it without unintentionally paraphrasing it. I have also revised ALT3, as "likely beyond" can also translate into "indefinitely". ZappaOMati 22:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This link is now dead; can you find an archived copy or replacement? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find an archive copy, so I'll look for a replacement. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 21:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Well, I provided a ref for Castroneves' penalty, but it doesn't mention Dixon's, so I made that hidden until I find another ref for Dixon's penalty. ZappaOMati 02:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Okay. Regarding Alt3, it reads both here and in the article as if the scheduling conflicts last for an indefinite period, when in fact the source says only that it affects the next two years. Alt2 is supported, but IMO is not very hooky - asking for a second opinion on that alt. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I kind of agree, although tbh it is unusual to have that many caution flags in that few laps; not sure if casual readers would at a glance do the math to figure that out though. As a comment, I also reworded the blurb in the article about the race not being run for the next few years to better match the source, which suggests the following:
ALT4: ... that due to scheduling conflicts the 2013 Grand Prix of Baltimore will be the last running of Grand Prix of Baltimore until at least 2016 and possibly longer?
Also, everything else checks out so if someone wants to use ALT2, the article is good to go. If they want to use ALT4, please review that hook so I'm not reviewing my own proposal. Thingg 22:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg ALT4 is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)