Template:Did you know nominations/Congregation Albert
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Congregation Albert
[edit]... that Congregation Albert was given its name after the right to name the synagogue was auctioned off for $250?
- Reviewed: Platygyra lamellina
Created by Epeefleche (talk). Self-nominated at 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC).
:*
New enough, long enough, meets core content policies. Hook cited to RS. GTG. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've just noticed that there is some close paraphrasing. For example: "Congregation Albert is the oldest continuing Jewish organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico." (article); "Congregation Albert: The Oldest Continuing Jewish Organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico" (source). There are a few other instances, it seems. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- There were actually two refs in the body of the text in the article. One ref says "Albuquerque's Congregation Albert, founded in 1897, is the oldest continuing Jewish organization in New Mexico." The second ref says "Founded in September 1897, Congregation Albert is Albuquerque's— and New Mexico's— oldest continuing Jewish house of worship." And I've now added a third ref, which says: "Congregation Albert is the oldest continuing Jewish organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico." The text in the article reflects some of the words that are common to both the two (now three) refs. But is an amalgamation of the two (now three) refs (and of course amalgamations are less likely to suffer from close para copyvio concerns). Some of the words in common are Congregation/Albert/oldest/Jewish. But those are immutable, I believe. See also in this regard WP:LIMITED. I've worked with some of the other words, to address your concerns. And I've gone through the entire article to address your concerns there as well. Also, as you've probably noticed, the bulk of the "catches" in the close para detector are immutables -- dates, names, numbers, addresses, and the like. Epeefleche (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- How about writing this actively rather than passively:
- ALT1:
... that the Grunsfeld family of New Mexico won the right to name Congregation Albert for $250?Yoninah (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Yoninah. I'm happy to have it be active. But the Alt IMHO is inferior in two ways. First -- it adds, and adds to the front of the hook no less, "the Grunsfeld family of New Mexico" -- which is a non-notable addition. Second, the focus of the DYK, "Congregation Albert", is pushed to the end -- it is best for the focus of the DYK to be at the beginning of the hook. IMHO. How about the following, or anything similar that addresses those two concerns (you can add "New Mexico" before synagogue if you think that better) ...
- ALT2:
... that Congregation Albert was named by a family that won the right to name the synagogue for $250?Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I hear you. But you're also using "name" twice in the same hook. I haven't yet figured out how to get around this. Yoninah (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- And I hear you as well. How about (though we lose "synagogue," and push the target title in a couple of words) ...
- ALT3: ... that the right to name Congregation Albert was auctioned off for $250? Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I like it! We could run with that, or, if you want to restore "synagogue", we could write:
- ALT4: ... that the right to name Congregation Albert, a synagogue in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was auctioned off for $250? Yoninah (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm equally happy with either Alt 3 or 4. Feel free to choose. One has the benefit of greater brevity, and the other the benefit of more information. BTW -- Yoninah, tx for working to make this better. Too often on this page of late I see editors raising issues, without suggesting improvements, and I appreciate your efforts especially as a result. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
