Template:Did you know nominations/Lord Pretender
- The following discussion 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 PumpkinSky talk 22:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Lord Pretender
[edit]- ... that Lord Pretender was hailed as a "master" of extempo, a lyrically improvised form of calypso music considered a forerunner of rap?
- Reviewed: Süßer Trost, mein Jesus kömmt, BWV 151
Created by Hillbillyholiday81 (talk). Self nominated at 01:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC).
No citation for the "Grandmaster" nickname (though several for "master"). Can you source it or otherwise change the hook? czar · · 23:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Czar. That "Grandmaster" source is in there somewhere! I could add the reftag to that particular part. Here's the quote: "He was hailed in the calypso fraternity as the Extempo Grandmaster" -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I trust that it's true, but the DYK rules require the hook's fact to be cited. (The nickname is mentioned in the lede, so mention again later in the article and follow it with a citation.) Also http://www.search.co.tt/ is not a reliable source—do you have a book citation or some other work to go from? Otherwise, you can just rephrase to "master of extempo", which is already sourced in the article. czar · · 00:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yikes. I just added the citation to 'Grandmaster', but if that site isn't a reliable source, some of the text will need removing. I'm happy to go with 'master of extempo' and have amended the hook accordingly. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, did you mean "grandfather" instead of "grandmaster"? I found a citation for that, but still not from a RS. czar · · 00:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- The source I was using said 'Grandmaster' -- where did you see "Grandfather"? I've done a few bios of Caribbean artists and good information is nearly always hard to find. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I trust that it's true, but the DYK rules require the hook's fact to be cited. (The nickname is mentioned in the lede, so mention again later in the article and follow it with a citation.) Also http://www.search.co.tt/ is not a reliable source—do you have a book citation or some other work to go from? Otherwise, you can just rephrase to "master of extempo", which is already sourced in the article. czar · · 00:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I know its hard to find RS for subcultures and most things that don't enjoy great popularity in America, so you have my sympathy for that. The upside is that the T&T source is supposed to be a reprinting of older articles, so if you can find those articles, you can find your reliable sources. (It's just that that one T&T website can post anything—it isn't credible.) You want to find the "Preddie passes on" article that supposedly was in the Trinidad Guardian on the first page, January 24, 2002, which should have the "grandmaster" source. ("Grandfather" quote [not RS].) The hook is better, but it needs a source for the definition of extempo used. Also the article didn't pass a verification spot check. Take a look and if you can resolve it in a reasonable amount of time (check the other non-tagged references too), let me know and I'll take another look. czar · · 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the help. I found another possible source which I'll post on the talk page later, and I'll keep searching for new ones. Cheers. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. Also, when you have a chance, remember to do your WP:QPQ and resolve close paraphrasing issues. czar · · 01:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the help. I found another possible source which I'll post on the talk page later, and I'll keep searching for new ones. Cheers. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- The QPQ has been supplied; have the close paraphrasing issues been dealt with? If so, a new reviewer is needed; if not, they need to be addressed soon. There haven't been any edits to the article since the most recent post here by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Article hasn't been touched since my previous comment, so the close paraphrasing hasn't been resolved. (If it didn't have those issues, I'd rework the hook for the nom.) Also the second "forerunner" part of the hook is unsourced (3b). I'm unfamiliar with why you said a new reviewer would be needed—is that in policy somewhere? And how much more time does the nominator have until the DYK fails? czar · · 04:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I've been a bit busy. The reference for "forerunner of rap" was already in there, I have just put a reftag by that quote in the lede. Whioh sentences have a problem with 'close paraphrasing'? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- These (from above)—relatively minor, but worth addressing. (There are some thoughts about these kinds of similarities at WP:PARAPHRASE.) "Forerunner" cite is good czar · · 14:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- That toolserver link didn't show up any instances when I tried. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 15:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean it didn't show anything at all or that it didn't show a copyvio? We know it isn't a copyvio, but the red shows the heavy close paraphrasing, the parts that should be rephrased and summarized to not reuse the article's language where unnecessary. czar · · 16:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Czar, sorry I didn't respond sooner. I should have said "new review" rather than "new reviewer"; only if you'd suggested a new hook yourself or done significant edits to the article would a different reviewer be required. As for the amount of time, things are flexible as long as the nominator continues to address issues. At least seven days should be allowed (which is the Wikipedia standard for responses), but a couple of weeks is not unheard of if the nominator is relatively inactive, and the back-and-forth on various issues can take far longer than that. Once the review has been hanging fire for several weeks, reviewers are more likely to close it if the nominator is not responsive. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Blue. User:Hillbillyholiday81, specifically I meant close phrases like "a five-week tour with the calypsonian Executor, for which he was paid 60 cents and two bags of oranges" vs. "a five-week tour with fellow calypsonian Executor saw Pretender paid 60 cents and two bags of oranges" You have to click on "show details" to see the sea of red, but the structure should be varied and the sentences should combine multiple sources so as to look (if not be) more like a tertiary source rendering and not a rearranged version of a secondary source. czar · · 06:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've reworded the "orange" section, gone through the results of the copyvio checker, and I can't see any obvious problems with the rest of the text. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 17:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Blue. User:Hillbillyholiday81, specifically I meant close phrases like "a five-week tour with the calypsonian Executor, for which he was paid 60 cents and two bags of oranges" vs. "a five-week tour with fellow calypsonian Executor saw Pretender paid 60 cents and two bags of oranges" You have to click on "show details" to see the sea of red, but the structure should be varied and the sentences should combine multiple sources so as to look (if not be) more like a tertiary source rendering and not a rearranged version of a secondary source. czar · · 06:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Czar, sorry I didn't respond sooner. I should have said "new review" rather than "new reviewer"; only if you'd suggested a new hook yourself or done significant edits to the article would a different reviewer be required. As for the amount of time, things are flexible as long as the nominator continues to address issues. At least seven days should be allowed (which is the Wikipedia standard for responses), but a couple of weeks is not unheard of if the nominator is relatively inactive, and the back-and-forth on various issues can take far longer than that. Once the review has been hanging fire for several weeks, reviewers are more likely to close it if the nominator is not responsive. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- You mean it didn't show anything at all or that it didn't show a copyvio? We know it isn't a copyvio, but the red shows the heavy close paraphrasing, the parts that should be rephrased and summarized to not reuse the article's language where unnecessary. czar · · 16:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- That toolserver link didn't show up any instances when I tried. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 15:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- These (from above)—relatively minor, but worth addressing. (There are some thoughts about these kinds of similarities at WP:PARAPHRASE.) "Forerunner" cite is good czar · · 14:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I've been a bit busy. The reference for "forerunner of rap" was already in there, I have just put a reftag by that quote in the lede. Whioh sentences have a problem with 'close paraphrasing'? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Article hasn't been touched since my previous comment, so the close paraphrasing hasn't been resolved. (If it didn't have those issues, I'd rework the hook for the nom.) Also the second "forerunner" part of the hook is unsourced (3b). I'm unfamiliar with why you said a new reviewer would be needed—is that in policy somewhere? And how much more time does the nominator have until the DYK fails? czar · · 04:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Even quotes like "Shortly before his death, the government allowed him to stay rent free" vs. "shortly before his death when the government allowed him to stay there rent free"—the high incidence of red and its correlation to the text shows more close paraphrasing than your own words. The article (especially those parts that show as similar) should be rewritten as original text (see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing). czar · · 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- On closer inspection, I have noticed several instances of close transliteration, and have altered the sentences. It should be fine now.
- The article was kicking about in my sandbox for a while, and it would appear that I released Lord Pretender into the wiki-wilds a little prematurely. Thanks again for your input. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 19:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
