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) 18:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The article is interesting but there are copyright problems. See here and here. I am sure they can be fixed by paraphrasing, but possibly the history should be purged. Does anyone know how to do this? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
You should pare down the list of "copyright violations" to only the ones that might make sense to put into quotation marks. Most of what you've (or the bot, I should say) listed would be things it would be impossible and illogical to rewrite:
Plant names: "albizia niopoides"
Place names: "Dominica Botanic Garden"
Proper names: the actual authors cited in the References got pulled up by the Bot as copyright vio!
Things that ought not to be rephrased: "some of these plants can be deadly"
Very short phrases, like two words, pulled out of context from long sentences, that are not worth rephrasing: "powerful tranquilizers"; "scorpion stings"
Why are you requesting that the article's history be wiped? OttawaAC (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I've revised the article to clean up possible copyright violations, also added a couple of source citations. If there are any other copyright issues with the article, let me know ASAP. Thanks! OttawaAC (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Revisions seem to resolve copyright issues. I have changed to a query: another reviewer should check. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the revisions address the copyright issues. Article dates and length check out OK; article is suitable sourced; hook fact is supported; image licensing is OK. However, the wording of the hook is awkward. I suggest the following rewording:
Still have close paraphrasing concerns here. Examples: "The alkaloids help lower blood sugar in diabetics and treat leukemia, and are also the basis for powerful tranquilizers" vs "These are used to lower blood sugar in diabetics, in the treatment of leukemia, and as powerful tranquilizers"; "Hibiscus tea lowers blood pressure in prehypertensive and mildly hypertensive adults" vs "Hibiscus Sabdariffa L. tea (tisane) lowers blood pressure in prehypertensive and mildly hypertensive adults". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Orlady fixed these with the last set of edits. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid this isn't quite ready yet - structural and phrasing issues with FNs 1 and 7. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I just can't see the problem. Perhaps you can make whatever corrections you feel are required, Nikkimaria, and then mark it good to go. That is probably more efficient than having other editors guess what the problem is. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that we can't sign off on something just because it doesn't copy the source word-for-word - the concern I have is that it maintains similarities to the source's phrasing and structure, with minimal changes. To paraphrase properly, synonym substitution or phrasal rearrangement is insufficient - you also need to look at larger structures. For example, compare: ""Tea" is often used instead "breakfast" for the first meal of the day. This usage has its origins in the colonial era, when plantation workers would have "tea" at sunrise before going to work. The second "tea" of the day took place in mid-morning." vs ""Tea" also often refers to the first meal of the day, rather than the word "breakfast". This comes from the days of the plantation when "tea" was taken at sunrise before going to work and another "tea" was taken in the middle of the morning." Notice how a significant portion of the phrasing and structure is identical. This section needs to be rewritten to address this, and there are a few other instances of similar problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria -- You aren't asking me to change the "paraphrasing". You aren't just asking me to re-phrase a sentence, or a few sentences; you are insisting that I not re-communicate the original author's ideas, conclusions and/or logic. Which is just nonsense. Ideas can't be copyrighted, for example, breakfast=first meal of the day, or "Terms for tea" versus "Tea terminology" or "Tea words" or "Tea vocabulary" or "Tea lexicon" or whatever it is that you're trying to get at. I don't seem to be the only one who can't wrap their head around whatever it is that you want to say here. Maybe you should revise something yourself so that we have a clear example of what it is that you want to accomplish.OttawaAC (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Which are the other instances? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria is employing an impossibly stringent standard here. Unfortunately there are thousands of articles in Wikipedia that are based on a single source and largely follow the structure of that source, but this isn't one of those articles. The article content was assembled from information derived from several different sources.
Yes, the section "Tea terms in Dominica" is based on just one of those sources and incorporates ideas and concepts from that source, but the expression of that information is original. Altering the concepts from the source to avoid this allegation of plagiarism would be original research, while using radically different terminology could distort the meaning. (Recently I have seen a few DYK noms for articles whose creators' efforts to choose different words from the source had led to distortions.)
It is also apparent to me as a reviewer that the section on "Medicinal teas" is based primarily on one of the cited sources, supplemented with minor information from several other sources. The sequence of topics in this section is largely patterned after the sequence in which those same topics are presented in the source; I agree that this is less than optimal, but due to large differences between the scopes of the article and the source (the source includes a lot of content that is not in the Wikipedia article, and the Wikipedia article has expanded details on some topics), I doubt that a casual reader of both articles would even notice the relationship.
DYK should not be confused with FA. This article is far from perfect, but everything in Wikipedia is imperfect. DYK nominations and reviews result in improvements to many imperfect articles, and display in DYK on the main page often provides the exposure that leads to additional improvements -- and new linkages with related content. Contributors should not be discouraged from submitting their content to DYK by the prospect of inquisitions like this one, and reviewers (like me) should not have to expect that our DYK nom reviews will cause us to be raked over the coals over a period of several weeks. --Orlady (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I fully support Orlady on this. There are many cases, and this is one, when there is a natural sequence for presenting facts and little reason for using highly original wording or structure. We do not want contortions like: In 1977 he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree. He attended high school in the town where he was born. The degree was in languages, specifically modern ones. Both the town and the high school were called Smallville. He was born on 14 April 1956, and attended Bigville University, which is where he earned the degree. More fundamentally, DYK is meant to present new content, warts and all. It encourages new editors who think "I could write better than that" and encourages editors who get a DYK barnstar. This intense nitpicking is counterproductive. But I suppose this is not the place for a discussion on principles. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with ORLADY. It's like the desire to avoid paraphrasing etc has become a witchhunt. PumpkinSkytalk 23:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)