Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Family Building Society

< Template:Did you know nominations
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: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Family Building Society edit

(
)

Created by The Whispering Wind (talk). Self nominated at 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

  • New enough. Long enough. NPOV. No QPQ needed. Dup detector spot check shows up some copyvios, eg "specialise in products that allow family members to help each other" More rewriting is needed, or direct attribution in quotes. Hook is cited, but it opened on 14 July, presumably established earlier. So, I've added an ALT1. All paras cited. Edwardx (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah! Great point! Now fixed so the lead is now strictly in compliance with the source; I agree ALT1 is best. :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed; should carefully check for close paraphrasing and copyvios. Struck original hook since ALT1 seems to be preferred. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm a little concerned about the attribution related to the problematic phrasing mentioned above by Edwardx. Compare the article's:
The organisation's stated aim is to specialise in products that allow family members to help each other whilst protecting their savings...
to the source's:
The Epsom-based society...will specialise in products that allow family members to help each other while protecting their own savings.
This description is not the organization's stated aim, but the Telegraph author's description in the article, so I'd recommend trying out a different phrasing here rather than a direct quotation. Otherwise, things look good. No changes with length, and QPQ has already been addressed above. The new hook is also supported (it's not really different from the first one). There's a surprising amount of internal information and product coverage, but it is all covered by reliable sources, and it is stated neutrally. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I have rephrased the contentious part to:
The building society will concentrate on providing products and services that are designed to enable members of a family provide mutual assistance, while safeguarding their savings ...
which seems to meet the point? The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
That looks better, thanks. I've checked the other sources in the article, and I see some overlap in the sentence structure from the sources in the Wikipedia article, even though some of these details are pulled from different parts of the source. Changing a few words around is still considered close paraphrasing (see this example to see what I mean). There are two instances I noticed:
Which? advises that the mortgages could be suitable for first-time buyers with relatives who have sufficient savings but that those people who can raise a deposit of more than 5% may be able to secure a better deal elsewhere.
...compared to the source's
It could therefore be suitable for first-time buyers with relatives who have plenty of savings in the bank...However, those who can provide a deposit worth more than 5% of the property's value may still be able to access a more enticing mortgage deal.
And from the article:
where the borrower has to put down a 5 percent deposit, whilst other family members must deposit sufficient funds to a total of at least 25 percent of the property's value
...compared to the source's:
The borrower has to come up with a 5 per cent deposit, while other family members must provide enough security to make a total of at least 25 per cent of the property's value.
The phrasing in these cases just feels too similar to me, and so I'd like to see them put more into your own words. Of course, certain technical phrases about the mortgage details do not need to change (e.g. 5 percent deposit), but otherwise I think there are other ways of describing the details about this product. I, JethroBT drop me a line 11:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, I have rephrased both passages. Some phrases eg first-time buyers are universally used terms, which are permitted by WP:PARAPHRASE and, of course, the requirements for the mortgage need to be technically accurate. My suggestions are:
Which? advises that if someone can raise a deposit of at least 5%, then other providers may be able to offer better rates. However, where first-time buyers have relatives who are able and willing to invest sufficient funds, then this mortgage could be suitable.
There are two requirements that need to be satisfied in order to obtain the mortgage. Firstly, the applicant must be able to make a 5 percent deposit and, secondly, this must be backed up by their relatives who must have put enough money in their accounts to cover at least 25% of the purchase price.
The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice work, I think these new suggestions work well. Thanks for the clarifications on some of the language. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Family_Building_Society&oldid=1017014402"