Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

[edit]
(
)

Created by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Hi, I came by to review this. A good, solid article; I see you've nominated it for GA. Before I start, I would like to know if you copied text from any existing articles? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    There has been no wholesale copying as such. As you would expect from an overview article, it includes a summary of a number of subsidiary articles, particularly of the various companies. Most of these were recently created or greatly expanded by me, so there may be some commonality. These articles include;
    There is also the London District Telegraph Company, but I definitely did not take anything from that as I only discovered the page existed after completing the article. For the early history, I used Telegraphy and Electrical telegraph as a guide for what should be included, but for the most part I wrote from my own references rather than the ones already in those articles (although there are still some in common). The history from nationalisation onwards (which by itself meets DYK length 20x over) is all entirely new to Wikipedia, as are the sections on the BETC, UKTC, and UPTC companies. SpinningSpark 14:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The question is not whether there's 1500 characters of new text, but of how many characters were copied, in which case the copied text needs to be expanded 5x in the total character count of this article, per Rule A5. I can't get the Dup Detector to work for me, so I'm a bit at a loss to determine which, if any, words were copied from other articles. Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I claim that there has been no copying and this in all essentials is a new article. Earwig bears this out with a check against the Magnetic company article [1]. I'm seeing only two sentences that could be construed as "copied" or "close paraphrase". The rest of the hits are company names, dates, reference titles etc. I expect similar results on any other article you care to check. If this one can't get past the DYK length requirement then you need to take a serious look at your rules which are clearly inadequate. SpinningSpark 23:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing only two sentences that could be construed as "copied" or "close paraphrase". Fine. That's all I needed to know. I was confused by your statement, there may be some commonality, and felt overwhelmed by the amount of text I would need to check. I'll continue with the review now. Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Images in article are freely licensed. Hook is interesting; offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. QPQ done. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Electrical_telegraphy_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=890132487"