Template:Did you know nominations/We Were So Beloved
- 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 EEng (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
We Were So Beloved
[edit]... that the documentary film We Were So Beloved asks whether survival is an end in itself regarding the Holocaust?
- Reviewed: Mansoor Hosseini
Created by I am One of Many (talk). Self nominated at 00:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC).
New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. NPOV. Dup detector reveals no unavoidable close paraphrasing or copyvios. The sentence "These middle-class survivors of The Holocaust are deeply troubled by guilt that is not theirs." whilst cited, would be better with an explicit attribution to the source, as otherwise it sounds like WP:OR. The article is well-cited, but the hook fact needs a citation immediately after it in the article. I feel that there might be a better way of expressing the concept in the hook, but I'm struggling to find it! Edwardx (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- First, thanks for the careful review!. The "These middle-class survivors of The Holocaust are deeply troubled by guilt that is not theirs." is my rephrasing of this statement "often haunted by a guilt that wasn't theirs" in the NYT article. I think it is crucial I think my rewrite captures the essence of what the reviewer is trying to say without directly quoting him. If you think there is a better way to capture his meaning, I would by happy to redo the sentence. I also added the source right after the question in the article. The hook is phrased a bit awkwardly, so what do you think about ALT1 below?
- ALT1: * ... that the documentary film We Were So Beloved asks, in the aftermath of the the Holocaust, whether survival is an end in itself?
- I am One of Many (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm happy with the NYT issue now. And I much prefer ALT1, so I will strike the original, just to avoid the wrong hook getting promoted. I'm also unlinking "documentary film" as this is a familiar enough concept and linking to it reduces the impact of the article title which follows right afterwards. Edwardx (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I have pulled this from prep as much of the article errs on the side of WP:PARAPHRASE in my estimation, at least from source 1 (The NYT review). I would like to see a little more effort going into original prose. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- @User:Gatoclass, do you have any examples to back this up? I ran a duplication analysis [1] between the two articles and other then direct quote and statements of fact, where are the issues?I am One of Many (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I checked the paraphrasing via Earwig's tool against the NYT review here. It gives a 14.1% match, which is not particularly big. The one thing I would change is to chop the quotation. That drops the detection to 12.5%, which the detector summaries as "not a violation". A general search via the tool reports no obvious copying from anywhere else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)