Template:Did you know nominations/Morgraig Castle
- 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) 10:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Morgraig Castle[edit]
- ... that there is no evidence to suggest that the 13th-century Morgraig Castle (pictured) in Wales was ever completed or occupied?
Created/expanded by Seth Whales (talk). Self nom at 13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Can I suggest if approved that this should be selected for St David's Day holding area.
- Reviewed: Midkiff Seductive
- Reviewed: Midkiff Seductive
Article (created yesterday) is long enough, neutral and well-cited. Hook is interesting and cited. Copyvio check finds none, and image has CCA Share-alike license 2.0 so can be used. Ready to go. Moonraker (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, how about:
- ALT1:... that it is unlikely that the 13th-century Morgraig Castle (pictured) in Wales was ever completed or occupied?
- ALT2:... that there is currently no evidence that the 13th-century Morgraig Castle (pictured) in Wales was ever completed or occupied?
I am uneasy about ALT1, as "it is unlikely that" gets us into probability. We don't seem to have the evidence to go that far. Moonraker (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)- ALT2 is an improvement on the first hook. Happy to approve that. Moonraker (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned that some of the phrasings used in this article may be too close to those of this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I did some rewriting - please could this be re-reviewed in hopes of again making it into a prep for 1 March, St David's Day? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good rewrite - that's fixed it. I don't see any paraphrasing issues now (not including direct quotes). The ALT2 hook is good to go. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Er, no, it hasn't, there's still close paraphrasing from the source I pointed out. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I did some additional work on this article. I think the concerns are addressed. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)- I moved this from the special occasion area to the February 28 section (approximately when it got removed from the queue) so it won't continue to be overlooked. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm still concerned that this article is too close to these two sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Could you give more specific examples of close passages please, as it's gone back and forth for a little while now and a couple editors feel there are no violations. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I found and fixed a couple of sentences in the gelligaerhistoricalsociety source that I think Nikkimaria might have been concerned about, but I fail to see remaining issues with the other source, which is the one she had identified in her earlier comments. At this point, all that is being "accomplished" here is that several of us are finding Nikkimaria increasingly disagreeable. --Orlady (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Examples: "Llewellyn burned down the partially built Caerphilly Castle, but following Llewellyn’s defeat, construction recommenced in 1271 and was completed." vs "Caerphilly Castle was burned down in October 1269 by Llewellyn the Last, but construction began again in 1271 and Caerphilly Castle was ultimately completed"
vs "Llewellyn the Last burned down Caerphilly Castle, but construction began again 1271 and was completed."; "He had heard the local stories about an ancient British fort and they had seen the maps with the rather strange rectangular shape" vs "Ward was aware of stories telling of an ancient British fort and he seen maps that showed an unusual rectangular shape". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- The strings of text you cite (minus the one I struck through above because I had replaced it before you commented) are both strings that I rewrote earlier. There are only so many ways to express these things -- and given the writing styles in those two sources, I can't imaging a reader concluding that this article plagiarizes either one of them. Since you apparently know how the information could be expressed differently, please educate those of us who have been altruistically trying to resolve your concerns his article, but obviously cannot meet your high standards. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly Orlady, I'd be happy to help you out. The second example could be reworded as "Stories of a mediaeval British keep in the area, which he connected with an odd rectangle drawn on some regional maps, led him to the site", though I'm sure you could come up with a more elegant turn of phrase. As you're likely aware, another way to avoid potential close-paraphrasing issues is to use direct quotes, or to combine information from multiple sources. Keep in mind that the two cited phrases were examples only. Please let me know if you need any further assistance in improving this article. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm... That wording might be true, but it looks like original research to my eye. First, the source does not indicate that he had stories of a "mediaeval" structure, but rather of an "ancient" structure. Those are not necessarily synonymous. The source calls it a "fort," which to me is not synonymous with a "keep." I understand a keep to be a fortified tower in a castle, whereas a "fort" is a fortification whose size and complexity cold be anywhere from a broch (not found in Wales, but an example of a small and simple fortification) to a walled city. Finally, as for maps, the source says only "they had seen the maps with the rather strange rectangular shape"; it does not indicate which maps, what was strange about the rectangular shape, nor how this shape was indicated on these maps (perhaps it was drawn, or perhaps it was something that was inferred from the alignment of vegetation or other features). (An additional wrinkle: Although the source cited says the map shape that attracted the explorers was rectangular, this other source says the castle is pentagonal, with a rectangular keep.) I don;t believe that it is appropriate to distort information from sources solely to avoid using words that resemble the words of a source. --Orlady (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well then, that offers another solution: combine those two sources to say the shape was either rectangular or pentagonal. The source does indicate the structure was mediaeval, but I take your point about "keep". As I said, I'm sure you could come up with a better phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- That might work if the purpose of this snippet of article text were to describe what the archaeologist discovered. However, its purpose is to describe what he was aware of when he decided to visit this site. The source says he had heard about an "ancient British fort" and was a aware of a "rectangular shape" on maps. --Orlady (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
* The map he refers to was a 1826-7 ordinance map by Greenwood. On the 1899 visit, the structure is described as "oblong" and was reclassified as rectangular in a later dig when one of the sides was rediscovered [1]. Froggerlaura ribbit 04:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have just read this article and the sources cited as issues of concern and find there to be no close paraphrasing. This article is approved and ready for the main page. It's a very informative and well-written article. Well done. Marrante (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Some material removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)