Template:Did you know nominations/International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

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 Allen3 talk 08:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering[edit]

Created by Paul W (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 12:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is new enough, long enough. However, it is currently too poorly sourced to meet DYK standards. What sources are given are all primary (either directly associated with the society or with its president, rather than being by neutral parties) and the history section is entirely unsourced. A minimal standard for appearing in DYK is that every paragraph should have at least one source, and the specific facts given in the hook should be clearly sourced. I know that this quality of sourcing is usually difficult to obtain for even highly prominent academic societies, but it needs to be met before this nomination can be approved. Additionally, although I don't think it rises to the level of being a copyright violation or plagiarism, some of the phrasing and word ordering in the article is uncomfortably close to that in http://www.issmge.org/en/the-society/history and could do with being rewritten using more original prose. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added several references from various US non-ISSMGE geotechnical sources to the history section, also including some additional facts. Hope this meets the points made above.Paul W (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Anything happening here? Time for a re-review? --PFHLai (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg The article is much improved in the area of third-party sourcing. Much of the content is still rather close to the sources in wording and structure, although I agree with David Eppstein that it doesn't rise to the level of being a copyright violation or plagiarism. I don't like the hook, though. My reading of the sources indicates that the society traces its origins to the 1936 conference, but it didn't really get "instituted" as an established organization until the 1950s. I intend to propose a revised (or completely different) hook. --Orlady (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I've done a fair amount of work on the article, but I haven't researched, nor attempted to revise, all of its contents. There is still some content in the article that lacks reference citations. This will need to be fixed before this can be approved. I fear that the creator(s) may have overreacted to the request for third-party sourcing, with the result that the article doesn't cite the organization as a source in some places where the organization is the source for the content. (The organization is, of course, a valid reliable source for many details.)
As for the hook, I've provided some suggestions below. None of them is likely to be wildly exciting for the average Wikipedia reader. ALT2, in particular, may seem obscure. I offer it because Terzaghi, Skempton, and Casagrande are very big names in the field of geotechnical engineering, so their names might attract the attention of readers who have knowledge of this field and could possibly be motivated to improve the article. Here are my hook ideas:
Thanks Orlady. I have added citations to assertions previously unreferenced, and - as suggested - drawn a little more on the ISSMGE's own website regarding its governance, aims and activities. I like the alternative hooks, of which I think the third is the strongest (though I appreciate the sentiments behind the second - it got me expanding the Skempton article too). Paul W (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Needs a new reviewer to check the ALT hooks and the issues raised above in previous reviews. Have struck the original hook due to the reasons given by Orlady. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • By the way, I just removed some persistent close paraphrasing from the article. It looks a lot better now than it did when I originally reviewed it but it still needs a thorough check for this issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Symbol question.svg Some of the phrasing appears to be only surface rearranging rather than complete rephrasing: for example, "established a pattern of quadrennial meetings" is quite similar to "quadriennial Regional Conferences have also become an established pattern". It's certainly close to being ready, but needs some attention to broader structural paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria. I have replaced quadrennial meetings with meeting every four years. Eliminates paraphrasing and, arguably, better plain English. Are there any other phrases which need to be changed? Paul W (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if it wouldn't be more helpful for you to work on restructuring, rather than substituting synonyms? For example, "an international conference on soil mechanics to coincide with the tricentennial celebration of the founding of the university" is quite similar in phrasing to "an international conference on soil mechanics as part of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the university's founding", even if "tricentennial" is replaced with "300th". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. This issue of substituting synonyms without changing the word order or the order in which facts are presented is exactly what I meant in my original comments about "close paraphrasing". That's what close paraphrasing means. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Have restructured/reworded the first two sentences Paul W (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Good enough. Please keep working on complete paraphrasing rather than synonym substitution for this and future articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)