- 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) 22:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Spirit Touches Ground
- Comment: I don't know if a QPQ review is required when it isn't a self-nomination, but I did it just in case.
Created/expanded by Shaneymike (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 03:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC).
- I found out that one is not needed if it is not a self-nomination. SL93 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Could do with more sources, but looks fine. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The creator added a third source since this comment was posted. SL93 (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "by purging contracts, one of which happened to be Clayton-Felt’s, and refused to allow him to use or buy back his previously recorded material" with "by purging contracts, one of which happened to be his...refused to allow him to use or buy back his previously recorded material", or "one week later he was admitted to the hospital after a tumor had been discovered that turned out to be malignant" with "One week later, he was admitted to the hospital after a tumor had been discovered that turned out to be malignant", or "Universal consented to release its claim on the music and turned it over to his family who with the help of friends and fans organized a network to lobby for the promotion and release of this long-delayed material" with "Universal finally consented to release its claim on the music and turned it over to his family. Through Josh’s website, family, friends and fans organized a network to lobby for the promotion and release of his long-delayed material".
Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm working on it now. SL93 (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This has been taken care of. SL93 (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Better, but now needs some copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by that. SL93 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- As I see it, the article would benefit from editing to fix some awkward wording and sentence structure, convert some passages/wording from vernacular conversational style to more conventional written English, and replace euphemistic wording like "loved ones" with objective standard wording. However, I must say that plenty of less-well-written articles have gone to the main page in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "some awkward wording and sentence structure" and what is "vernacular conversational style"? I haven't went through such a copy edit discussion ever since my Good Article. SL93 (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just went to take a look, and found the first paragraph under Background and recording to be confusingly written, with unclear antecedents and a difficult-to-puzzle-out event sequence. It's also without an inline source citation, which should have been addressed in the original review. There are also places in that section that do not accurately reflect the facts in the source; the sentence "He went through the recording process of Spirit Touches Ground in December of 1999.", for example. As long as the article has been pulled back for other issues, now's an excellent time to improve its text. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I will try to fix it, but using words such as "antecedents" is not needed. I had to look that word up. SL93 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- What does vernacular conversational style even mean? I am trying to not get annoyed, but I would be within my rights to be annoyed when things are not being explained. SL93 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not a self-nomination so I call it quits. I would have fixed the issues, but I am annoyed that people can't seem to grasp the concept of correctly explaining their problems. This nomination can be closed. SL93 (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me for assuming competence on your part. (I've encountered users here who are insulted when other users don't assume that they are competent. It's rare for someone to complain that they were assumed to be able to do things they are incapable of.) Anyway, here's a good explanation of "vernacular", excerpted from Vocabulary.com:
- Vernacular describes everyday language, including slang, that's used by the people. The vernacular is different from literary or official language: it's the way people really talk with each other, like how families talk at home.
- You know how some language is fancy and formal? Vernacular is different: think of it as how friends talk when no one is listening. Vernacular language includes slang and obscenities. One of the hardest things about writing for school is getting away from the vernacular and learning to write in more formal ways that don't come as naturally.
- Orlady (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The thing is that I don't want to do research into what literary language is and isn't for one fact on the main page. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is not just an issue for DYK. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be written in standard written English, not "how friends talk when no one is listening". Sentences like "It took until after he died of the tumor for Universal to decide to give up their ownership of the album's music" are "how friends talk when no one is listening". --Orlady (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I never said that it was only a DYK issue, but I still don't want to try to fix the concerns raised for a fact on the main page. Since this a site-wide issue and my rewording is such a bother, I could simply revert my edits and place a close paraphrasing tag on the article because I was not the one who close paraphrased. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- What I find interesting is that the statement you mentioned is something that friends would say when people are listening. SL93 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe so, but if I wrote like that in my 8th grade English class, I would have had red marks all over my paper -- and a lousy grade. --Orlady (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Apparently my teachers throughout high school did not know what they were talking about because my papers consistently received As. SL93 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have just reverted SL93's rejection of this nomination, since just as nominators should not promote the nominations they propose, the same applies to rejections. Frankly, I like the story of this album and think it would be nice to feature it in DYK; as SL93 doesn't wish to, I'd like to take on the necessary copyedit. I'll post here again when I think the article is ready for a new DYK review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would prefer to not have the nomination credit if the article is promoted. SL93 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed the DYKnom credit template per your request. The mention of the nomination will remain on the template for bookkeeping purposes only, to make it clear this wasn't a self-nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have done a copy edit based on what was already there. I have not looked at the sources, so this may or may not address potential close paraphrasing issues, but I do believe the prose is now encyclopedic in tone and style. EdChem (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The issue was in the first section. I reverted my edits and placed a close paraphrasing tag on the article. Anyone is free to revert what I did if they want to. SL93 (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- SL93 (talk · contribs), do you agree with the changes I made to smooth out the language into a more encyclopedic style? EdChem (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The close paraphrasing issue still remains. I don't want to edit it because I might mess up just like the last time. SL93 (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Easiest to solve with material from other sources, like this one: Flick, Larry (March 9, 2002). "Sibling Carries On Clayton-Felt Legacy". Billboard. p. 14. Retrieved July 12, 2012. and the NYT source I added, it breaks up potential problem areas and avoids copying the sequence if ine source. EdChem (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Nice job on the revision, EdChem. The article language is encyclopedia-like -- and it's more interesting reading than the previous version. Hook is still properly supported by citations; I judge this one to be good to go. --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- On the hook, the original one needs a re-write, we don't to use "posthumously" and "after his death" in one sentence:
- Also, since the nominator withdrew, and as I have now fixed the referencing and close paraphrasing, can I take over as nominator? Would this be ok, Orlady (talk · contribs)? EdChem (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1 is fine. I'm giving you co-creator credit, EdChem, in view of all your work on this. Too bad that SL93 opted out -- he definitely deserves credit for starting the nomination and working on the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Orlady - and I agree, SL93 (talk · contribs) deserves the nom-credit if he is willing to accept it. EdChem (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I agree that I should. I botched up the copy edit, but this album does have an interesting story behind it. I added the DYKnom template back, but I hope that no one objects. SL93 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)