Template:Did you know nominations/Monmouth Regimental Museum
- 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) 20:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Monmouth Regimental Museum edit
- ... that the Monmouth Regimental Museum (pictured) houses the records of the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers?
- Reviewed: Adolf Sturmthal
- Comment: MonmouthpediA
Created/expanded by ACP2011 (talk). Self nom at 19:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've unbolded Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers, which seemed to have been bold by accident. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- ALT 1... that the Monmouth Regimental Museum (pictured) houses the records of a regiment that has the word "Royal" twice in its name?
- alt suggestion Victuallers (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- oodles of refs, lenght and image OK. No plagiarism found. Notable subject. Thank you Victuallers (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this article may contain too-close paraphrasing. Compare for example "The unit was initially a local militia and has evolved to become part of the Territorial Army. Throughout its history, it has served has a reserve force, its members civilians brought together at intervals to be trained and called upon in times of need." with "The Regiment was originally a local militia and is now part of the Territorial Army. Throughout its long history, it has always been a reserve force, composed of men with ordinary occupations who were brought together at intervals for training, and were called upon for active service at times of need". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I looked at the two specified sentences. I felt that the first one was fine. However, I have rephrased the second sentence. In addition, I have rewritten much of the article today, including new material and references, and avoiding or altering close paraphrasing. I also included more inline citations, to make it easier to find source material. Upon reflection, I eliminated the map, as it didn't add anything to the article. I added four photos to the article, however, to give it more interest. In addition, I am proposing that we forget the two hooks that have been previously proposed, as well as the photo, and go with something a little zippier:
Baby gas mask in the Monmouth Regimental Museum
ALT 2 "... that the Monmouth Regimental Museum displays a variety of objects, including a mediaeval "crock pot" and a baby gas mask (pictured)?
Comment: MonmouthpediA. References for hook: Ref #16 and Victuallers' gas mask photo. Thank you. Anne (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- The noted similarity is still quite close; would it be possible to rephrase further? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've made numerous additional small changes again this morning. However, I went through the entire article on Sunday, rewriting and trying to avoid too close paraphrasing. In addition, in two cases where I felt that new short phrases should not be substituted, I enclosed them in quotes. One was a description of the militia uniform, the other the goal of the organization UKNIWM. In addition, with the second version of the article on Sunday, I included two newspaper quotes, both of which have been attributed. I can't change the various titles of the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers, as that would be giving false information. Also, terms like militia, British Army, Territorial Army, and posse comitatus have specific meanings and shouldn't be changed. With this third version of the article, I've also double-checked, trying to make sure the article is in British English. Please let me know whether there is a particular sentence that you find offensive. Thank you. Anne (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
-
Does "silence implies consent" work in reverse? Since the last communication from the reviewer six days ago, the article has undergone four revisions, three of them by me. A fifth one, the original revision on May 20th (Chicago time), was a major one and included a substantial expansion beyond the original article that I wrote in April. The most recent one that I just completed this morning a few minutes ago was a minor one. But as I did it, I realized that jumping through all these linguistic hoops is not improving this article. While I just became a Wikipedia contributor three months ago, it seems that the standard that is being utilized for this article is such that the majority of DYK noms that I have reviewed should have been detained for copy vios. In addition to copy edits this morning, I've also enclosed the various titles of the regiment in quotes, assuming that whatever tool the reviewer is employing is somehow being triggered by the repeated use of the regiment's exact titles. This is a frustrating experience. I would like to request a different reviewer. Anne (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I looked at the two specified sentences. I felt that the first one was fine. However, I have rephrased the second sentence. In addition, I have rewritten much of the article today, including new material and references, and avoiding or altering close paraphrasing. I also included more inline citations, to make it easier to find source material. Upon reflection, I eliminated the map, as it didn't add anything to the article. I added four photos to the article, however, to give it more interest. In addition, I am proposing that we forget the two hooks that have been previously proposed, as well as the photo, and go with something a little zippier:
I can't spot any copyvio (any longer), so this is good to go. I would suggest that ALT2 is most interesting of the three hooks, although they are all suitably referenced. Schwede66 10:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)