Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Los Angeles Crusade (1949)

< Template:Did you know nominations
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Los Angeles Crusade (1949)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC).

DYK toolbox

Los Angeles Crusade (1949) edit

(
)

Created by Leszek Jańczuk (talk). Self nominated at 14:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

  • The size and time are fine, but the alternate hook is basically copied straight from the source. Also, the article needs some copy-editing. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 22:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to place this on hold. I'll try to get back to you soon. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 03:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not support ALT1 or ALT2, I prefer original hook. ALT1 was added just in case. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the original hook. The telegram's message was "Puff Graham" or all his editors meaning Graham? What's significant about "puff", the article doesn't even explain it. How does the telegram relate to the Los Angeles Crusade or Graham aka did they publish it (or did he just send it to editors and it died there) and what did publishing it accomplish if that's what they actually did? Mkdwtalk 08:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Before this message Graham was unknown person in America. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, but that still answers very few questions. How did sending a telegram to editors make Graham famous? Is Puff a nickname or an order? How did it relate to the Los Angeles Crusade? Editors surely got telegrams all the time. Perhaps a more clear variant would be something similar to, "... that Billy Graham's Los Angeles Crusade (1949) campaign gained national coverage after media tycoon, William Randolph Hearst, order all his editors to "Puff Graham"? Mkdwtalk 21:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Based upon the original hook, I'd say I would decline it as a reviewer. That said, if another reviewer disagrees and accepts the hook's clarity and meaning then I will differ to their opinion. Mkdwtalk 20:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Striking ALT1: I agree with the other reviewers that the meaning of "Puff Graham" is too obscure to make an effective hook unless given clear context. The ALT3 variant has grammatical issues but could convey the idea if it's fixed. More important, however, is the close paraphrasing in the article which was briefly noted above. For example, in the first source, the article's "served to introduce Evangelicalism as a force in American life and a part of American culture" changes only two words and deletes one from the source's "served to introduce modern Evangelicalism as a force in American life and a presence in American culture" (ALT1 hadn't even changed those two words). This must be fixed. As the sentence is also the source for ALT2, I've struck that ALT as well. Here's a possible variant of ALT3; I've taken out the wikilink for "puff" as I don't think it conveys the correct meaning:
  • Lester, I'm happy that you like ALT4, but you still need to deal with the close paraphrasing that I also mentioned. The article cannot be approved while such close paraphrasing remains. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That two-word change merely turns a direct copy to a very close paraphrase. It remains a significant problem, and a far more substantial edit needs to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It was not direct copy: "The campaign also served to introduce modern Evangelicalism as a force in American life and a presence in American culture." --> "The Los Angeles crusade served to introduce Evangelicalism as a force in American life and a presence in American culture." --> "The Los Angeles crusade served to introduce Evangelicalism as a force in American life and a part of American culture." Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Article retains close paraphrasing. I forgot about the removal of the word "modern" (acknowledged in my original comment above), for which my apologies. However, the phrase from "served" to the end of the sentence was originally a direct copy aside from that one omission, and only the two words in it have subsequently been changed. Without significant rewording of it, this nomination cannot pass. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Due to the Los Angeles crusade Evangelicalism was introduced as a force in American life and a part of American culture". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Still close paraphrasing here, both with the sentence originally flagged - "Evangelicalism was introduced as a force in American life and a part of American culture" versus "introduce modern Evangelicalism as a force in American life and a presence in American culture" - and in other places. For example, "Within two months Graham was preaching to crowds of 350,000" is given as a direct quote from the source in Billy Graham, and "More than 3,000 people made decisions for Christ" is almost identical to "More than 3,000 made decisions for Christ". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "3,000 of them made decisions for Christ". That's still too similar to the source. Try to make new sentences. Why not replace the "made decisions for Christ" with something completely different? "Converted to Christianity", how does that work? Furthermore: the 350K people quote has been left untouched, which the previous reviewer said is a word-for-word quote from its source. I've verified that here. The close paraphrasing needs to be worked on more thoroughly. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope. This is still much too close. Please rephrase entire sentences, don't just find a synonym for one word in the sentence. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 13:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Because of your continued refusal to change the "3,000 made decisions" quote which is obstructing this DYK's approval, I have taken it upon myself to modify it. I believe the article is OK now. However, as I am now involved with the editing of this article, I need someone else to review it.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Still seeing issues with paraphrasing here - compare for example "more than 1,000 prayer groups that had been formed in and around Los Angeles. These groups regularly prayed for the crusade's success" with "more than 1,000 prayer groups had been formed in and around Los Angeles. For several weeks they had been meeting regularly to pray for the crusade's success". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been four weeks, and significant close paraphrasing issues remain despite numerous reviews. It's time to close this. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Los_Angeles_Crusade_(1949)&oldid=863684059"