Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club
- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club
edit- ... that the Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club was one of the first yacht clubs to be founded outside of Britain?
- Reviewed: Varietease
- Comment: GibraltarpediA
Created/expanded by ACP2011 (talk). Self nom at 20:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, Gibraltar-related articles are temporarily being reviewed by two individuals. In addition to the regular DYK criteria, at least one reviewer should also indicate whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review.. IP addresses and Victuallers are not allowed to do the reviews.
Hook check, length, plagiarism, refs, style, fine. Victuallers (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
There is inadequate regular and structural paraphrasing in the article. In particular, the History section and its source for the first three paragraphs, the Friends of Gibraltar newsletter, starting with the bottom of the first column on page 10 and continuing through the first two paragraphs on page 11, are too similar for comfort, not just in structure but in some of the phrasing. And, as Nikkimaria noted when I asked her on her talk page, this is true of other sources as well: the final sentence of the section, "Membership in the Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club continues to be a status symbol", is quite close to the source's "To be a member of the RGYC...continues to be perceived as a status symbol". As Nikkimaria does say that material from "several of the sources" is problematic, a thorough going-over would seem to be in order. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'll do a comb-through of the article and take care of it today. Thank you.Anne (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Went through article carefully tonight. Didn't see much in the way of close paraphrasing but nonetheless did a substantial general revision, including removal of some of the material from the original history section. Added new material and seven new references. Thank you. Anne (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
-
This has improved, but I'm still seeing material that I feel to be too close in phrasing to that used by sources. Compare for example "as the presence of the Royal Navy waned, membership of locals dominated, although access was still restricted" vs "as the Royal Navy influence disappeared, Gibraltarian membership began to dominate, but with controls on access". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I would actually consider that a copyvio. Maybe we should ask the opinion of an expert, like Moonriddengirl? SilverserenC 21:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not copyvio, but close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I guess. But it's on the very edge of close paraphrasing then. SilverserenC 01:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed my sentence to:
"However, during the latter part of the twentieth century, as the presence of the Royal Navy waned, the membership of locals increased more substantially."
This compares to the original source:
"In recent decades, as the Royal Navy influence disappeared, Gibraltarian membership began to dominate, but with traditional controls on access." Anne (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed my sentence to:
Another re-review please. If there's any further issues, please list them explicitly so they can be fixed. SilverserenC 06:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Since Victuallers made the initial review, we have to start all over again with Review #1, and Review #2 on this particular nomination. — Maile66 (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, Gibraltar-related articles are temporarily being reviewed by two individuals. In addition to the regular DYK criteria, at least one reviewer should also indicate whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review.. IP addresses and Victuallers are not allowed to do the reviews.
- Review 1:
- I've checked it over and it looks adequate to me. It depends a lot upon the club itself as a source but that seems reasonable for an organisation of this kind. From I can see out there, there's more to be said about the club - its distinctive ensign; patronage by the Queen; the social status of the members; competition with Spain &c. I'll fill in some of these gaps to help it along. Warden (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with you, but when I included it previously I was accused of "regular and structural paraphrasing." I just didn't see it, so I finally gave up and deleted it from the article. I will rewrite portions of the article today, specifically including information on the topics that you mentioned. Thank you for your review. Anne (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Review 2:
- Hook is referenced, and confirmed by reference number 3. Is short enough. Also article is still long enough after being trimmed. And also was new enough after being nominated. One word I dislike is "credentialed". However the article is neutral, non promotional and referenced. Good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)