Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Arundell

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Arundell

(

)

... that Matthew Arundell bought back Wardour Castle (ruins pictured) from Lord Pembroke, to whom it had escheated when Arundell's father was attainted?

Reviewed: Mario Lanza

Created/expanded by Moonraker (talk). Self nom at 07:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have some reservations about this article, namely that some of the text closely follows the text in this source, and probably needs reworking. Some of the other text closely follows some of the other sources as well, though I think those similarities can probably be overlooked since they both utilize some fairly common phraseology. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The only "text closely following the text" in the tudorplace article are the words "restored in blood", "escheated", and "attainder", all exact terms which I don't think anyone can be expected to paraphrase. However, I have put "restored in blood" in quotation marks and explained it, I hope that helps you? Moonraker (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not being more specific the other day, allow me to rectify the omission now.

Source: Sir Matthew Arundell was restored in blood two years after Sir Thomas execution and eventually recovered most of his father's property. He was able to purchase Wardour Castle, which had escheated to the Earl of Pembroke on his father's attainder and it became his principal residence. He also maintained a house in London.

Article: In 1554, two years after his father's execution, ~~when he was about twenty-one~~, the Arundells were "restored in blood", ~~meaning that their father's attainder was reversed so far as it affected them,~~ and Arundell gradually succeeded in regaining most of his father's lost estates in Dorset and Wiltshire. He bought back Wardour Castle, which had escheated to the Earl of Pembroke, and made it his main residence, while also keeping a town house in London.

After striking the additions, these two paragraphs closely follow each other in the order in which the facts are presented and indeed in their similarity of language. Though you have obviously made an effort to vary the language, it still reads to me as if you constructed your own paragraph while referring directly to the original, rather than, say, listing the facts separately on a piece of paper and then coming up with your own construction without referring to the original. In short, it still looks uncomfortably close to an example of close paraphrasing to me. Had this been the only example from said source, I might have been prepared to overlook it, but the same can be said of most of the other paragraphs from that particular source, as follows:

Source: He served on numerous commissions in Dorset and Wiltshire. and served in the House of Commons, representing Shaftsbury in the Parliament of 1555 and Breconshire in the one 1563. In the latter Parliament, he became closely associated with William Cecil, later Lord Burghley

Article: As well as serving on commissions in Dorset and Wiltshire, he also sat in the House of Commons, representing Shaftesbury in the parliament of 1555 and Breconshire in that of 1563. In parliament he became an associate of the powerful William Cecil, later Lord Burghley

Source: In 1588 he was listed as among twelve knights with "great possessions" able to sustain a peerage. When he died (he suffered cruelly from bladder stones), he left £2000 for the relief of the poor.

Article: In 1588 he was listed among twelve English knights with great possessions who would be suitable to hold a peerage (...) His death on 24 December 1598 followed long suffering from bladder stones (...) he left £2,000 for the relief of poverty

Perhaps none of these examples taken alone would be cause for concern, but taken collectively they raise a red flag for me. I would like to see some of these constructions reworked a little more - even quoting directly from the source, where appropriate, is preferable to close paraphrasing IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's more helpful. I'll see what I can do to revise the article, but some of these salient facts aren't going to sound terribly different, and "the order in which the facts are presented" is simply a chronological order, which in my view is the best for biography. Moonraker (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you have rewritten those passages, I won't hold this nomination up any longer. However, I would strongly urge you, if you have not already done so, to read WP:PARAPHRASE carefully, paying particular attention to the section on how to avoid close paraphrasing, in order to avoid future problems. I like the informative hook BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)