Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Smith (Fell runner)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Orlady (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bill Smith (fell runner)[edit]

(
)
  • ... that Bill Smith wrote the "bible" of fell running protocol and safety, was honored with a song by Chumbawamba, and recently died during a race after he fell into a bog?
Note, his funeral is in a few days. See talk page. Would be great to accelerate this.

Created by 7&6=thirteen (talk). Self nom at 16:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Good to go. I altered the hook to include the Wikilinked band-name. Facts check out, length checks out, hook checks out. Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

- plagiarism concerns. For example, "Although considered to be among the most sensitive and endangered British landscapes. they are a common site in northern uplands" (article) vs "Although they are among the most endangered and sensitive landscapes in Britain they are a common site in northern uplands" (source); "Survival experts (such as Smith) recommend slow movements or a wide swimming action" (article) vs "Survival experts recommend slow movements or a wide swimming action" (source); etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the original hook was not supported by content in the article. The article does not mention running protocol and safety in connection witht he book. The hook that I had placed in the prep area, before Nikkimaria brought it back here, was:
I edited the article to address the "plagiarism" concerns. The quoted section has been totally rewritten. Given the level of quotation, sources and citation in this article, I am not pleased. by the tone or the implication, but I'll let that pass for now as I know you have a job to do. But I will address your concerns. If you have more such concerns, please let me know. Best regards, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Having quotations and citations doesn't preclude issues of plagiarism, copyvio and overly close paraphrasing. For example, your phrase ""bible" for future generations" appears in the source as "bible for future generations" - verbatim, yet only "bible" appears in quotes. (Some of your quotations would be better paraphrased, but that's more a stylistic/writing issue). Sentence structure can also be too close to the source, even if the copying is not verbatim: "He also took part in long distance fell races including the Lake District Mountain Trial and Wasdale "Horseshoe" Mountain Fell Race" vs "He also took part in long-distance fell races including the Lakes Mountain Trial and Wasdale Horseshoe". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

On your talk page you stated that I had replicated the error of referring to moors as a 'common site.' It is a "site" meaning a location, that is a geographical feature. I could have used "sight" but that was not what the article said. This was not an error, and I am sure you will change your mind upon deeper reflection. I put in the whole name of the race and put in a link, rather than putting in the shortened versions from the other (and there were many) sources. Perhaps you would like to rename the race? The word "bible" appears in multiple sources. But I'll make it a quote in the form you have suggested. You didn't like that I added [like Mr. Smith] to the phrase "survival experts", because you said he wasn't in the source. It was implicit in the sources. But I've removed it so we don't need to fly speck it. Frankly, 200 edits later, and I'm done. I am tired of both the subject and the article, and can no longer objectively edit it or see the leaves for the trees and the forest. Do what you will. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"They are a common sight" or "They are common sites" would be correct; "They are a common site" isn't, but it's also not a big deal. You're misinterpreting my statements rather badly in the rest of your comment; I am concerned not that you added [like Mr. Smith] to the sentence even though it was not in the source, but that the rest of the sentence was verbatim from the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that neither the source nor I was wrong on the use of the word "site". It was used in the sense of being a geographicasl feature or location. To quote the Oxford English Dictionary, in part: " n. location, place, plot, ground, spot, setting, locale, area, milieu, neighiborhood, locitty purlieu, placement, position; situation, orientation, plat." Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus (Oxford University, 1996) p. 1418. Feel free to use on of those, if you like. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The section on survival experts has been totally rewritten. Perhaps not up to your standard, but rewritten nonetheless. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I've done a substantial rewrite for continuity, etc. Please take a look and compare since the last edit (at the time) by Nikkimaria 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The hook could read: "Well known Fell runner, who wrote the definitive 'bible' on is history, and was honored in a song by Chumbawumba, recently disappeared and died in a bog." All of this is covered in the more than two dozen sources. I have taken care of any rational concerns. Please look at the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The hook could read: "Well known Fell runner and humble legend Bill Smith, who wrote the definitive 'bible' on its history, and was honored in a song by Chumbawumba, recently disappeared and died in a bog." All of this is covered in the more than two dozen sources. I have taken care of any rational concerns. Please look at the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The hook is not the issue here. The issues that brought this back to the nom page are related to the article, and a thorough re-review of the article is not a trivial task. Please be patient (but don't hesitate to continue improving the article). --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Orlady
Thank you for your assistance.
A review is fine. I know you will be critical but fair. Take your time.
However, as to this whole process, being maligned is not fair. This is actually typical of my experience in Wikipedia. The organization is long on criticism and punishment, but seems to not understand that positive reinforcement (even a little) might keep editors coming back. It is no wonder that recruitment and retention of editors is a critical issue. We work alone, and brickbats are not welcoming or effective.
The reliable sourcing alone in this article makes it superior to the vast majority of articles you might see at this early stage, given the nature of WP:DYK. That it is a complete (with the possible exception of a thumbnail overview of Fell racing) seems to be manifest. It is well formatted and researched, and every jot and tittle is supported by references.
Nevertheless, some of the reviewers seem to be more intent on fly specking (picking it out of pepper) then being constructive. I've made close to a hundred correctional edits since one of our esteemed reviewers shot up a flair. He has not bothered to respond, and did not on his own remove his templates even though requested. I did it on my own, as I do not have interminable patience with rude behavior. I for one am tired of the gaming and the quest.
Or delete the whole article if it is beneath your standards. I've read lots of Wikipedia articles, and i suggest we could delete most of the encyclopedia if this article represents the threshold.
I am turning this page "off" my watch/frustration list, so if you need me, please contact me directly.
Happy editing and best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Orlady,
Sorry you bailed. It is still a worthwhile article that deserves a DYK. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done my part, as has Orlady with her recent edits. This seems to have fallen into a bog (so to speak), and the obvious answer (IMO) is being interminably delayed. I am being patient, but I do not want to hear that this nomination is now too old for consideration. This would make the objections of certain editors a perpetual Self-fulfilling prophecy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, DYK nominations don't become too old for consideration while they are awaiting reviewer attention. If a nominator doesn't respond to reviewer concerns, at some point the nomination will be scrapped as "too old," but noms don't get tossed out due to slow reviews. --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The article still contains far too many direct quotations for my taste, including some content more suited to a memorial than an encyclopedia article (see WP:NOTMEMORIAL), but it's been reworded enough to scrub out the elements that could raise concerns of plagiarism. The hook (minus the items I struck out) is definitely supported by the article and by sourcing. A trip to the main page in DYK will bring more eyes to the article, which should be helpful. For the hook, my preference would be for something like the following wording (removed the "race" part; removed the song as somewhat peripheral; used "tumbled" instead of "fell" because of too many meanings of "fell"):
  • ALT2 ... that Bill Smith, who wrote a book considered the "bible" of fell running, died recently when he tumbled into a peat bog while running across a fell? --Orlady (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Shearonink (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bill_Smith_(Fell_runner)&oldid=828904436"