Template:Did you know nominations/William Warren Orcutt

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 Allen3 ^talk 16:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

William Warren Orcutt

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that a petroleum geologist named William Warren Orcutt began collecting fossils from the La Brea Tar Pits in 1901, bringing the site to the attention of the scientific community?

Created/expanded by Rusty Cashman (talk). Self nom at 00:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Article is new enough and meets the length requirments, hook is short enough, and the hook fact is verified. However, I think the article text is too close to the source in some places. Examples:

• source: "He then became became superintendent of the San Joaquin Valley Division of the Union Oil Company of California, a company with which he would continue until his retirement in 1939"
• article: "He then became became superintendent of the San Joaquin Valley Division of the Union Oil Company of California, the company for which he would work until he retired in 1939"

• source: "In 1901, Orcutt came to Los Angeles, and was made manager of the Geological, Land and Engineering Departments of the Union Oil Company."
• article: "In 1901 he was made manager of the geological, land, and engineering departments of the company, and moved to Los Angeles."

There's more instances as well. The closeness is not egregious, but I'd like to see more distance between source & article prose before I would be comfortable in okaying this. Also, a QPQ review is needed. Sasata (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded the text in an attempt to address the concerns about paraphrasing the sources too closely. What is a QPQ review? Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Prose looks to be sufficiently paraphrased now. QPQ=quid pro quo review, meaning one must review another article if one has submitted more than 5 DYKs of one's own. Looking at your talk page, I see that this is not the case, so the requirement is waived. Sasata (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)