Template:Did you know nominations/Felisa Vanoff

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Felisa Vanoff

(

)

... that Felisa Vanoff was an American dancer, choreographer, producer and philanthropist whose husband, Nick Vanoff, created the Kennedy Center Honors?

Created by Zigzig20s (talk). Self nominated at 16:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

Entry is new enough, long enough, within policy, and hook is confirmed in all cited sources. Definitely an interesting person. There are only four cited sources, but they're all obituaries, so they're pretty dense with information. There must be more possible sources to cite, but that's surely more an issue with the entry than the DYK nomination.Penny Richards (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Penny Richards

Returned from prep due to paraphrase issues identified by Yoninah at WT:DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I spent time with this article, adding sources and removing the close paraphrasing. However, it's still basically a chronological account of her life, following the line-by-line presentation of all of the sources. I'm not sure if we can do anything about this. I'd appreciate another reviewer's opinion. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The page layout was mangled by your edit and you also removed a secondary source. Please see my comment on the talkpage. I hope this either gets reverted or fixed. I have no idea why you would want to do this rationally. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The page looks exactly as it did before I started. I added more national references and removed one very local, neighborhood paper (The Beverly Hills Courier), whose material was simply repeated in all the other sources. The nomination has been sitting here for over a week; why didn't you improve it yourself? Yoninah (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the layout, even though I tried to explain it on the talkpage first. Do you see a difference? Is it not looking better? Now, I disagree with removing a reference. Surely, one more reference is better than not. I would like to add it back. Why not? Again, see talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored the ref and the layout is fixed. Still calling for another DYK reviewer to decide about the line-by-line paraphrasing of the sources in regard to this article's eligibility for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I just put the url of the article and the url of the first citation link into the dup detector, and loads of long close paraphrases showed up either side of the duplicated passages. And that was just the first citation source. So this is a no. Sorry. --Storye book (talk)

See your talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

From the discussions on the talk pages of Zigzig20s and Storye book it looks like this nomination might be dead. Zigzig20s do you want to withdraw this nomination or are you planning to work on it? (don't ask me to fix it as I am busy running a Fortune 500 company, practising for the Rio Olympics, isolating the ageing gene, writing a sequel to the Bible and checking DYK nominations) Belle (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

We are trying to fix it. I still don't know what the problem is, so I have asked naysayers to be very specific. It's a short article and won't take long to fix it once we have a better idea of what needs to be fixed. But we can't fix anything if the criticism is vague.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, there is no longer close paraphrasing apparently. Wasn't this the only objection to the nomination?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) What you certainly waited for: more criticism: I find the hook boring, why speak about her husband if she did interesting thing, just an example:

ALT1: ... that Felisa Vanoff became the first female choreographer for the Hasty Pudding Theatricals and was a lead dancer for the New York City Opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The idea behind the original hook was that I created both her and her husband's page at the same time, so I thought it would be good to get more traffic for both pages. I also think the Kennedy Center Honors are quite a notable event. But your hook could work too.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the close paraphrasing tag from the article because I think the issue is not intentionally serious and I believe you want to correct this promptly before the tag gets put back, Zigzig20s. Here are some examples of close paraphrasing:
(1)
pennsylvania state representative and her mother velma lindway was an artist and illustrator after graduating high school felisa moved to a manhattan boarding house and studied dance with
the pennsylvania house of representatives and velma lindway a professional artist and illustrator after graduating high school felisa set off to new york city in pursuit of her
(2)
weidman's dance theatre she went on to perform in concerts with peter hamilton and appeared on the fred waring and billy rose television programs in 1948 she
joined charles weidman's dance theatre as lead dancer gave concerts with peter hamilton and appeared on the early fred waring and billy rose television shows in 1948
(3)
for the new york city opera where she performed in carmen la traviata and don giovanni from 1953 to 1955 she was a lead dancer with the john

opera company where she danced lead roles in operas including carmen la traviata and don giovanni from 1953 55 she was a principal dancer with the john butler

The solution is to find a way of writing the same information in a different order, and the easiest way to do that is to present it from a different perspective. A very simple example might be to change e.g. "she did blah then she did blah" to "before she did blah, she did blah". --Storye book (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry there was an edit conflict so you didn't see the above explanation, Zigzig20s, before commenting. This nom is still delayed by close paraphrasing; I removed the tag because you were willing to put it right and were just waiting for information to help you do it. ALT1 is acceptable and checks out online with citation #1, and I understand that the original hook is still valid. So the only thing holding up the nom at the moment is the close paraphrasing. --Storye book (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the first two. I also changed the third one a bit, but I cannot rename the operas. Was that all?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(watching): you can't change the opera names but sort them differently, like alpha, or in order she performed, or in order written, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find this ridiculous. She performed them in this order. Why would I mention the last one first?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down, Zigzig20s. People are trying to help you get this nom passed. It's not about causing you difficulty. Close paraphrasing is where the text is a bit too close to copyvio, and copyvio puts WP at risk of being sued by fat, greedy lawyers, which is why we have to avoid anything which might encourage same lawyers. Close paraphrasing can be identified when you get some of the same words appearing in the same order as in the original, and nearly as close together as in the original, although there may be extra words inserted in between. However you have now made some edits in the article, which show some comprehension of the problem. The new edits have improved the article just enough for me to be able to pass it. So thank you. I take the first review of the original hook on trust. ALT1 checks out online with citation #1. Good to go with either hook. --Storye book (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am calm and (and very patient...), but no one could sue for stating the same title of an opera (or a book) in the correct chronological order. So it was an unreasonable request. Which is why you've passed it and thanked me. I think the first hook makes more sense, but if others are going to try and argue about this for weeks, I don't mind using the second hook, which is weaker in my opinion, just to avoid having to be patient again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't request anything, just made a suggestion. The hook is also nothing but a suggestion, - how could I know that you wrote on the husband also? - About her, a funny name and a precise name of a major opera house (at the time) seems more attractive than a rather boring list of occupations. - Unfortunately it's too late to nominate him with his own hook, but consider that next time, - I stopped doing double noms long go ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Zigzig20s. There were no unreasonable requests regarding close paraphrasing, and no request to change the title of an opera or book; your edits show that you worked out what to do. If anything, I was probably being a little too lenient in passing this nom. So before I change my mind ... --Storye book (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Still good to go with both hooks. --Storye book (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, scroll up and see that Gerda wanted me to change the order of the operas she performed in...so that made no sense. I will not suggest more articles for DYK after this; it is too much of a power trip for some people. But as this is good to go, LET'S GO. You choose whichever hook you like best. Let's be done with this please. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I decided to stop submitting articles for DYK because of the whole Lili Bosse drama (compounded by the Beverly Hills 9/11 Memorial Garden drama!), but I think Vanoff deserves the DYK nomination I suggested when I was naive about the whole process...She was very prominent in the entertainment industry!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Zigzig20s Sorry I'm now going to have to withdraw the pass that I gave this nom. See comment by BlueMoonset on Talk:Felisa Vanoff#Close paraphrasing explanation. I have had to reinstate the close paraphrasing tag on the article page in response to that comment. This nom is not going to get promoted if I pass it by being too lenient about close paraphrasing. I have no doubt that Vanoff is a notable subject, but it is the articles which are checked for DYK, not the subjects alone; or to put it another way, Vanoff deserves a better article at DYK. I repeat that you have not been asked to change names of operas. Gerda wrote, "You can't change the opera names but sort them differently." That means something like, write opera 2 before opera 1 instead of opera 1 then opera 2. You do this e.g. by saying "Before she performed in opera 2, she sang the lead in opera 1." --Storye book (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This nom now needs a new reviewer, and possibly some major practical help with re-editing the remaining close paraphrasing. --Storye book (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we need someone who actually explains what they want in a constructive manner; I tried to change it the way you wanted, and it's still not OK apparently, even though you changed your mind. So who else can help please? I also don't understand why you would change to make the page less chronological by mentioning operas she performed in later, before. And nobody would sue for this simple fact, that A comes before B, not B after A. I hope this makes sense. So who else can help please?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
In an effort to try and be more constructive, I have added two notes on the talkpage, about my failed efforts with Google Books and Google Scholar. However, I don't have access to databases at present, so if anyone does, they may be able to find more. Maybe better to talk about this on the talkpage rather than the DYK nomination page. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Nobody has responded to my efforts to find more references. Looking at this situation objectively, this seems unconstructive of those who profess criticism but don't try to solve the problem at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. The article looks fine to me and I took pains to fix whatever problem you seemed to have with it. Unless you are able to show exactly how you want it to be improved further, I don't see a need for the "close paraphrasing" tag at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have made some additional edits that I think should resolve any remaining paraphrasing issues. I'd like someone to sign off on the changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ready with either hook (I prefer the ALT as it has less of a "known because of her husband" vibe) Belle (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can have your feminist hook if you want. (As a philanthropist, she would be introduced as "Mrs Nicholas Vanoff" in some circles, but never mind.) Btw, should I move our discussion on the talkpage about close paraphrasing here? Otherwise it will look strange, as the problem has been fixed and it really was more relevant to this nomination than anything.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Girl power! (really, "my feminist hook"? the only accurate part of that is "hook"). It's not necessary to move the talk page discussion here: close paraphrasing is close paraphrasing and anybody who has an overwhelming interest in a historical discussion of it will surely be able to track down this nomination. Belle (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to move it here. May I?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(watching) How about a link? (For whom, if I may ask? Who is going to look at this once it's closed?) Please leave the approval at the bottom if you want it promoted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would make a lot more sense as it was only relevant to this nomination and it has been fixed. It will make the page look bad otherwise.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You can do with your page (almost) what you like. If you don't need this anymore you can delete it like a bot message. You can archive it. You can collapse it, - look for examples on my user talk. I made a link. No good reason to put the code here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about my own talkpage. I am talking about Felisa Vanoff's talkpage. The section on close paraphrasing should be moved here I think. Agreed?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, I would suggest to archive or collapse. Other editors are involved, whose comments should not "disappear" to here, where it blows up the nom page now, and will be black on blue, not easy to read, once promoted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, done. I left the two comments about Google Books and Google Scholar, as they are ongoing discussions (or should be, if anyone replies!). I think we are good to go with this DYK nomination. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Still ready. Belle (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)