Template:Did you know nominations/CG 4

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: rejected by Allen3 ^talk 09:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

CG 4

(

)

... ~~that God's hand (pictured) is opaque?~~

Alt 1:... that God's hand (pictured) resembles a comet with a dusty mouth?

Alt 2:... that God's hand (pictured) can create many sun-sized stars?

Reviewed: UKIP: The First 100 Days

Created by The Herald (talk). Self nominated at 13:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC).

The Herald, Article moved from User:The Herald/CG 4 on January 31, 2015. User:The Herald/Hall of Fame shows only 2 DYK (QPQ check showed zero), so no QPQ needed. 1691 characters. While I could verify the name "God's hand", I could not verify the "opaque" part. The online reference does not say so. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Added NOAO press release source verifying the opaque. However I am concerned that the article seems to paraphrase the source quite closely. Astro interest (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Rewritten.. - The Herald (here I am) 13:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not checked for copyvio yet. But immediate concern: accuracy of hook. Only a part (head) of the nebula is opaque, not the entire nebula as suggested by the hook. Alternate hook is needed.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The alt hooks are now cited (though all cites contain almost the same matter, a derivation of ESO version). - The Herald (here I am) 03:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Herald, the article has major close paraphasing and copy-paste. For example, Discovery is virtually copy paste from http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1503/. Also, ALT1, ALT2 is not mentioned in the article and are synthesis of different facts in the article, resulting in accuracy issues.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz, I have rewritten the article and now Earwig Copyvio shows about 38.3%. Fine, I think. Alt.1 passes now per the latest version. - The Herald (here I am) 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Structure section suffers from Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing (read "How to write acceptable content" in the link). Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: How now? - The Herald (here I am) 16:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"Discovery" is also copy-paste. The whole article needs to rewritten. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please check it now. The sections are rewritten and those proper nouns are left as it is. - The Herald (here I am) 15:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The paraphrasing is still too close here: compare for example "stellar energy is gradually disintegrating the head of the globule, sweeping away its dust particles and scatter the light" with "Their energy is gradually destroying the dusty head of the globule by sweeping away tiny particles that scatter the starlight". Note also that the (insufficient) paraphrasing here has actually changed the meaning of the phrase, and that the source that is too close is not the one cited for that sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Will it be good to remove that superfluous statement "stellar energy is gradually disintegrating the head of the globule, sweeping away its dust particles and scatter the light"..Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Herald, if that statement is superfluous, then by all means get rid of it if you'd prefer that to doing a better paraphrase of the source material. Since Nikkimaria uses "for example", you should definitely check for other remaining instances of close paraphrasing. Please note that since the original review, you have had four new DYKs hit the main page, so a quid pro quo review will be required for this nomination since you've had more than five DYKs. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, I think..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Herald, thanks for the QPQ review. In the article here, the second and third paragraphs under Structure seem to be talking about the same thing, the reason CG4 glows, but in a contradictory fashion, and the third paragraph is unclear about what is seemingly about to be destroyed and why. Can they be combined into a single paragraph that works as a whole? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Like that of now? -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 06:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Herald, unfortunately not. I think you need to find a copyeditor to go over that section, because all of the problems I mentioned still exist, including the contradictions, and some of your edits introduced new errors (such as "loacted" and various grammatical issues). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I have requested an editor who, I think, have done it..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 02:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The hook seems too good to pass up - especially Alt 2. I'm anything but an expert on this subject, but I'll offer a few small wording suggestions here on the off chance they're useful. --Rosekelleher (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"It is a cometary globule whose one side has been blown outwards into a long tail" implies that the globule has only one side, and I don't see how that's possible, so I assume it's not what you really mean. I suggest changing it to "It is a cometary globule, one side of which has been blown outwards into a long tail."

Why "During 1976" instead of simply "In 1976"? Do you mean "Throughout 1976"?

Why "were found to show" instead of "showed"?

Why "a dense and dark, disrupted head" instead of "a dense, dark, disrupted head"?

I suggest replacing "pointing in a direction away from" with "pointing away from" for concision.

Under Structure: There's that "dense and dark" again. Why not just say "relatively dense, dark matter"?

I have the same question about "opaque" as someone else, above.

Done, as I got it..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 14:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think some of the paraphrasing is still a bit close - compare "Each globule has a dense, dark, disrupted head and a very long tail, with the latter pointing away from the Vela supernova remnant located at the center of the Gum Nebula" and "They had dense, dark, dusty heads and long, faint tails, which were generally pointing away from the Vela supernova remnant located at the centre of the Gum Nebula". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria. I don't say done this time..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, so I would suggest combining some other sources then, as that Discovery paragraph is still following the structure quite closely. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, I have tried a bit more to copy edit the paragraph. The removal or substitution of the cite is more or less unimportant and futile and hence kept it as such as it is a reliable one. There is no doubt that ESO is the primary cite and all others are drawing from it. So combination of more cites will not do anything more than the current work. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 18:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggested combining cites not out of reliability concerns but to help you get away from so closely following the structure of a single source. However, reviewing the article again, there appears to be other problems with sources - for example, "In reality, the galaxy is over a hundred million light-years further away" is taken verbatim from FN1, which is not the source cited for that sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)