Template:Did you know nominations/Elaine Surick Oran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Yoninah (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Elaine Surick Oran[edit]

  • Reviewed: Phuti Mahanyele
  • Comment: created in sandbox for Bryn Mawr Ada Lovelace Day edit-a-thon, 22nd Oct 2014

Created by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk). Self nominated at 15:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC).

  • Just a comment: The lead is long compared to the rest of the article and has a lot of information that is not in the body. Maybe the author could consider moving material down into the body, then recasting the lead as a summary. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. I've moved some of the material from the lead into the main body of the article and reworked it there. Your input is much appreciated. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've gone through and reworked the section that talks about her work, which hopefully will address many of these. I've left a number of explicit quotations in the awards and honors section, which are getting picked up by the copyvio software, e.g. for "outstanding contributions to the theory of the dynamics of explosions and reactive systems." I think there's value to quoting the grounds on which she was given awards, verbatim, rather than trying to paraphrase that information. Also, please note that in several cases the copyvio software has picked up an official title, e.g. Numerical Simulation of Reactive Flow, Senior Scientist for Reactive Flow Physics, or organization name, e.g. Institute for the Dynamics of Energetic and Reactive Systems, which cannot be reworded. It also picked up one of the titles of an article in the reference list, "Dr. Elaine Oran Receives Society of Women Engineers Achievement Award". Thanks for all the useful feedback. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like there are problems with other sources as well - compare for example "numerical simulation of complicated and dynamic fluid flows have been applied to phenomena as varied as movements of fish and explosions of supernovae" with "numerical simulation of complicated and dynamic fluid flows — helps us understand phenomena as diverse as movements of fish...and explosions of supernovae". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've rewritten that one too in an attempt to retain the sense of the original statement without paralleling the expression so closely. The range of examples is important though, those being particularly diverse in the set of examples originally given, and hopefully the base for the proposed hook fact.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Reactive flows can involve gases, liquids, and solids that combine and change chemically, moving through space and interacting with their boundaries" vs "Reactive flows are made up of complex materials -- gases, liquids, or solids, even combinations of these -- that change chemically as they move through space and interact with their boundaries". This is particularly concerning given that the source being closely paraphrased is not the one cited for that section. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • First sentence reworked as: "Reactive flows can involve gases, liquids, and solids, or combinations thereof. As these move through space and over time, they may change chemically. Identifying the boundary conditions where these states of matter react, and the ways in which they interact, is important in modelling reactive flows."Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Mary Mark Ockerbloom, the fact that the referencing remains unchanged for the sentence you just reworked despite it having been pointed out that it was closely paraphrasing a different source is very worrying. I don't see how this nomination can proceed if we can't trust the sourcing as given. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, it took me a while to figure why there was a problem, and then I realized I'd done something confusing :-) Apologies. The source for the paragraph is the published book, but the book is not online. I had added a link to the publisher's page for the book, thinking that would help people to find copies of it, but of course the material that I was summarizing was from the book and not from the publisher's page. I've removed the link.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nikkimaria, for confirming that the close paraphrasing has been addressed. However, I just realized... BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Full review needed. Although the close paraphrasing has been fully addressed, the original review never covered the standard criteria: newness, length, article sourcing, hook sourcing, neutrality, QPQ check, etc. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This article is new enough and long enough. It is neutral and its copyright and referencing problems seem to be sorted out. The hook is interesting and cited to a reliable source. Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)