Template:Did you know nominations/Dorchester, Dorset
- 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) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Dorchester, Dorset
[edit]- ... that the Tolpuddle Martyrs were tried in the Shire Hall at Dorchester?
Source: "... Shire Hall, which was built in the 1790s. The Tolpuddle Martyrs were tried here,"
- Reviewed: De laude Cestrie
Improved to Good Article status by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 20:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC).
Recent GA, timely nominated, well referenced, interesting and neutral. Hook is interesting, neutral, short enough, cited in the article, and verified in cited reference. QPQ done. By checking for close paraphrasing, Earwig's tool found matches with this website (which is also cited in the article): http://www.dorchester-tc.gov.uk/About+Us/Civic+History/The+Town+Seal Since some full sentences are nearly identical, I think this needs to be resolved. Oceanh (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing this. I am glad to say that the paragraph involving the close paraphrasing preceded my involvement with the article. I have rephrased it, cutting out some of the unnecessary detail, and it should now be OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for promptly addressing this. Earwig still finds a few close matches, for example this sentence: "The royal purple background signifies Dorchester's status as part of the private estates of the king since before Domesday." and also the middle part of the subsequent sentence. Oceanh (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- How are we doing now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing this problem, that particular issue is sorted out. I still get "new" matches from Earwig's tool, which appear problematic when checked manually (although the tool labels the overall result as "Violation Unlikely"). For instance this sentence fragment appears to be too closely paraphrased from the source: "(...) largely because of the special relationship between the Durnovaria Silver Band who met the Lübbecker Schützenmusik Corps at an event in Bayeux when it was twinning with Lübbecke in 1968." And there are other matches, some of which might need to be fixed, while some are false positives. Maybe you could try to run this command yourself, repeatedly after each fix: Earwig's tool checking Dorchester, Dorset. (I find this tool very useful. It helps to quickly find possible close matches, which can be fixed one by one. Rerun the tool after each batch of modifications, until the tool finds no more problematic matches.) Oceanh (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I rewrote that sentence, then what I did was compared each of the urls mentioned by Earwig with the article by means of Duplicate Detector. The first url had a list of large employers in the town, and for that I have put the firms in the article in alphabetical order. I did not find anything else I thought significant. Incidentally, most of my involvement with the article and raising it to GA status, consisted of adding references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Good. The remaining hits are just long proper names, including a list of museums and a list of companies, so this should be ok now. I did notice that the paraphrasing issues that were present in the article stems from years ago. Thank you for cleaning it up, and for bringing this article to GA. Oceanh (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I rewrote that sentence, then what I did was compared each of the urls mentioned by Earwig with the article by means of Duplicate Detector. The first url had a list of large employers in the town, and for that I have put the firms in the article in alphabetical order. I did not find anything else I thought significant. Incidentally, most of my involvement with the article and raising it to GA status, consisted of adding references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing this problem, that particular issue is sorted out. I still get "new" matches from Earwig's tool, which appear problematic when checked manually (although the tool labels the overall result as "Violation Unlikely"). For instance this sentence fragment appears to be too closely paraphrased from the source: "(...) largely because of the special relationship between the Durnovaria Silver Band who met the Lübbecker Schützenmusik Corps at an event in Bayeux when it was twinning with Lübbecke in 1968." And there are other matches, some of which might need to be fixed, while some are false positives. Maybe you could try to run this command yourself, repeatedly after each fix: Earwig's tool checking Dorchester, Dorset. (I find this tool very useful. It helps to quickly find possible close matches, which can be fixed one by one. Rerun the tool after each batch of modifications, until the tool finds no more problematic matches.) Oceanh (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- How are we doing now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for promptly addressing this. Earwig still finds a few close matches, for example this sentence: "The royal purple background signifies Dorchester's status as part of the private estates of the king since before Domesday." and also the middle part of the subsequent sentence. Oceanh (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing this. I am glad to say that the paragraph involving the close paraphrasing preceded my involvement with the article. I have rephrased it, cutting out some of the unnecessary detail, and it should now be OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
