Template:Did you know nominations/That We Can Play

Add links
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) 16:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

That We Can Play[edit]

(
)
Games (now Ford & Lopatin) in March 2010
Games (now Ford & Lopatin) in March 2010

Created by EditorE (talk). Self-nominated at 12:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

  • Article is new enough, created 2 days before nomination. It's long enough, at 7659 characters by my count. It follows NPOV, though the tone is unencyclopedic in some places (e.g. "majorly"), and uses inline citations appropriately.
There are a number of instances of too-close paraphrasing that will have to be corrected before this article can run as a DYK.
Hook is short enough (though I would strike the "highly" and the second "their") and interesting enough. Facts in the hook are cited in the body of the article but not yet in the lead — that's easily fixed, though. Hook is compliant with BLP.
I was baffled by the results from the QPQ check tool... is there documentation somewhere? (I am new to DYK review.)
Image is freely licensed; I'm not convinced it works at DYK thumbnail size, though.
As I have virtually no experience at DYK review, I'd ask a more experienced reviewer to check my work. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 03:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • New reviewer requested to check inexperienced reviewer's work. Note to GrammarFascist: please only use one summary icon per review, since the software will assume the most recent icon is the one that counts, but in this case the final icon (the tick) does not reflect what the final assessment should be, that the too-close paraphrasing means that the article is not approved and needs further work. (Giving at least one or two examples of the close paraphrasing is a good idea, as it helps the nominator find and correct them.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry about that, BlueMoonset, and thanks for fixing it for me. Here are a few examples of the close paraphrasing:
  • article "A week of demos had been recorded during the summer of 2009 at Ford's parents' home in Massachusetts"; source "We did a week of demos during the summer of 2009 at Joel's parents' house in Massachusetts." (Pitchfork)
  • article "the two decided to move into an apartment together in 2010 to get the project going."; source "it took us moving into an apartment together this year to really get the project going again." (Pitchfork)
  • article "'Planet Party' has dusty handclaps, cheesy, violent orchestra hits, howling wah-wah'd guitar synths"; source "The dusty handclaps, cheesy orchestra hits, and baying keyboards of 'Planet Party'" (Boston Globe)
I (belatedly) followed the link to the Everything Starts With An 'E' nomination above and confirmed that EditorE reviewed it. I'm still confused by the QPQ Check tool, though. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the issues addressed! I'm trying to make my articles as little of a quote farm as possible, and I promise these issue will be resolved. 和DITOREtails 22:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Still waiting after over a week for EditorE to fix all the close paraphrasing in the article. EditorE, please be sure to post here when you have addressed the issues raised by GrammarFascist in the reviews above. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure all the close paraphrasing problems is fixed by now, and also removed some unneeded critical analysis. 和DITOREtails 03:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You did well at rewording most of the close paraphrasing, EditorE, but you did miss some that the wording should have been obvious to you as too similar to the source:
    • article "Its instrumentation of synth panpipes and marimbas, a bouncing boogie bass and pounding disco drums backs Laurel Halo's extremely-reverb'd dreamy vocals noted to be similar to the cloud-like textures that appear in works released under the name Oneohtrix Point Never"; source "'Strawberry Skies', for instance, is their contribution to history's vocal pop canon, featuring Laurel Halo's dreamy singing over synth panpipes and marimbas, a bouncing boogie bass and stomping disco drums underpinning it all." The word "dreamy" is POV and should be either attributed as a direct quotation or changed, as should the distinctive phrase "cloud-like textures" which is taken from a different sentence in the same source.
    • article "Shaw wrote that the song sounded more like a real computer game than the UK club songs that the track is being influenced by"; source "the result sounding far more like a real computer game than any of the UK club tracks currently referencing them." This should probably be converted to a direct quotation since you're mentioning the author.
I'm concerned that you thought those instances weren't close paraphrasing, EditorE. I don't think this article is yet ready for another reviewer to take over, since they would just tell you to fix instances like those noted above. For future reference it's much easier to avoid close paraphrasing from the start than to fix it after the fact. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've done more fixing of this ever since. I'm trying my best. 和DITOREtails 22:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • EditorE, more needs to be done to correct close paraphrasing than changing a word or two to a very similar word. You need to rewrite what you find in sources in your own words. Distinctive phrases, even ones as short as "boogie bass", should be either (1) completely rewritten, (2) included as a direct quotation set off by "quotation marks", or (3) omitted entirely. Please address the above-listed instances of close paraphrasing properly (I note that you have thus far made edits to only one of the sentences I identified above) using one of the three methods I suggested. Remember that evaluative language has a higher attribution requirement than dryly factual language; it might be fine to use the phrase "five-track EP" without attributing it as a direct quotation, but the same would not be true of the phrase "explosive debut EP", nor would changing it to "explosive first EP" constitute sufficient rewriting. Is this clear? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Alright, you've made it clear. I guess I'm just an idiot in understanding some thing. But now I'm really going to take this seriously. 和DITOREtails 02:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've taken a stab at helping to fix the close paraphrasing. I've only had time to get to the first paragraph. I will check back in later to see if any more has been (or needs to be) done. SojoQ (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • SojoQ, that's very good of you to take this on. Unless you continue, I don't think the article will qualify for DYK due to the lingering close paraphrasing issues; the edits previous to yours have left the basic structure intact while changing a few identical words here and there, and that is simply not adequate. Please let us know when you're done. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm down to the final section, but that's all I can do tonight. I should be able to get to the rest of it tomorrow. I'll post here when it's ready for another set of eyes. SojoQ (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset EditorE GrammarFascist I've finished the rewrite for close paraphrasing. This was a fairly substantial project. While the flow of the page made sense and had reliable sources, almost every sentence was taken directly out of the originals as written. The final section received the most changes--as there was content there that, to me, read like original work rather than a reporting of secondary source material. I incorporated some of the references found in that section into different parts of the page--primarily descriptions of songs. Hopefully that makes sense to everyone. The release dates of individual songs on the EP could be added back into the final paragraph, with the appropriate sourcing (example, you'd need a third-party reviewer to actually report that song X was released on day Y, rather than providing a link to the band's original blog post). In any event, I hope the close paraphrasing issues are resolved -- or at least closer to a resolution. A new, complete DYK review is needed. SojoQ (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
SojoQ, thank you again for your great work rewriting and otherwise cleaning up this article. I do think a fresh set of eyes on the article is a good idea now, even though I'm more experienced at DYK review than I was when I began reviewing this nomination. BlueMoonset had already recommended to me, since close paraphrasing was a major issue, that Nikkimaria be the one to re-review this nomination; I hope she(?) is available to do so. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome and good luck! I'll leave the rest of the fine tuning to you folks. Best regards, SojoQ (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is looking pretty good in paraphrasing. My one concern is with footnote 3, which remains a bit too close at times. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure which edit version you read nor am I saying I cleared all the close paraphrasing issues, but I noticed some of the edits I made have been reverted in the final section(s) of the page. So, now, not only do the footnote 3 close paraphrasing issues still need to be addressed (maybe someone with a background in music could help explain the styles the band uses better without such close paraphrasing), the final section also contains close paraphrasing and a reliance on original, not secondary sources (primarily the band's blog). I concur this page still has problems to be resolved.SojoQ (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • SojoQ, I notice that there have been significant edits since your post; have they taken care of the close paraphrasing and reliance on primary sources? If not, then since it was EditorE who reintroduced the close paraphrasing after you had eliminated it with your edits, I think we're probably at the point that we should close the nomination as unsuccessful due to persistent close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I would like to clarify that in SojoQ's edits, it looked a lot of reliable, important information was removed, and I did not mean to re-introduce any close paraphrasing in any way imaginable, nor should I have. I reverted his edits proper, and everyone should be fixed by now, so I would request this nomination would be kept going. However, I would like to give advice to SojoQ that you shouldn't put release information of tracks or albums in a composition section of a music article, as composition sections only discuss anaylsis of the track itself, not distribution and promotional histories of tracks. Also, you removed information regarding the Hudson Mohawke remix that was from a reliable source, so please be very careful next time if you going to fix close paraphrase issues to make sure every necessary part of an article is still in place. Thank you. 和DITOREtails 17:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset Nikkimaria When I checked the page this evening, the edits had been reverted (again) and are closer to the version I offered. I revisited the troublesome "reference 3" and reworded some of the quotes. Hopefully this gets us closer to fixing the close paraphrasing problems. I also moved the release dates that were in the composition section to the release date section, as suggested by EditorE. Any omission of facts supported by reliable secondary sources on my part were inadvertent and certainly could and should be added back into the appropriate sections of the page. The original sources no longer appear on the page. Fingers crossed this now resolves the close paraphrasing issues and we can get this thing wrapped up. SojoQ (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I think the paraphrasing is fair enough now. I would suggest though that even single words should be quoted or rephrased when unique - for example, "scattergun". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • New reviewer requested to go over the revised article now that close paraphrasing issues have been addressed, and if it meets the DYK criteria, to give it a tick. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the hook, I agree with the first reviewer's suggestion of rephrasing, which spells out like this:
  • The hook fact is cited in the article, and verified in online reference. I have checked the article with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which now gives this a green tick. Earwig's tool found matches to three cited sentences, but these are properly quoted, attributed and cited. The article is well written, interesting and appropriately referenced, and was new enough at the time of nomination. It is currently a GA nominate with ongoing GA review. The picture is used in the article, and seems to have an ok licence on Commons. QPQ: Nominator reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Everything Starts With An 'E'. (This article was promoted, and then pulled from the prep due to citation needed tags. The tags were added by another editor after the review was done, and have later been removed. However, it seems that the nomination template was not inserted back into the DYK nomination page after being removed from prep, at least Everything Starts with an 'E' disappeared from the nom page and never appeared at DYK.) Oceanh (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oceanh, thanks for noting that 'E' had disappeared; I've restored its nomination template. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/That_We_Can_Play&oldid=1017920043"