Template:Did you know nominations/Make the World Move
- 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Make the World Move edit
... that according to Robert Copsey for Digital Spy, the Christina Aguilera and Cee Lo Green song "Make the World Move" features a "bonkers arrangement"?
Created/expanded by Calvin999 (talk). Self nom at 14:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
-
The first paragraph of the "Background" section is copied from the Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) article. According to WP:DYKSG#A5, "If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." By my count, with the assistance of DYKcheck, this copied section is 1597 prose characters, meaning the entire article must run at least 8485 characters to qualify for DYK. At the moment, this article has 5743 characters, so it's over 2700 short if that's the extent of the copying. Regarding the hook, the quote in the article is just for "bonkers" (although the source does have "bonkers arrangement"), and the article does not specifically credit Copsey at that point. It ought to, especially as this description comes from one of the less favorable reviews, and therefore cannot be said to be representative, given that the article says the majority of reviews were positive. Another hook would probably be in order here, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Copsey is the reviewer, so that point is redundant. The hook is fine, as you say so yourself. And it doesn't matter if the background is the same or re-written, it has the same effect and outcome. Why re-write it when it is fine as it is (rhetorical). Most articles do this. Furthermore, the article didn't have to be 5x expanded, as I created it from new. It was written and nominated within 5 days of creation. AARON• TALK 12:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry, Aaron, but with 1597 copied prose characters—that is, pre-existing work, and DYK is all about new—this nomination is dead in the water if you don't add more new text. New articles with text copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia don't count as completely new for DYK: rule A5 makes that abundantly clear. There's nothing wrong with creating articles with existing material, save for the fact that they are less likely to be eligible for DYK. Because no one noticed you were recycling that much material, you managed to get both Blank Page (song) and Red Hot Kinda Love (song) through DYK earlier this month when each, in fact, violated A5 and should not have been approved. However, it has now been noticed, so it can't continue if you wish this article to hit the main page. Your choice is to increase the new material to the point that it covers the recycled section, which is 8485 total prose characters or more, to reduce the recycling to about 1000 prose characters, or to have this article skip DYK. A5 has been invoked a number of times in recent reviews: it's a long-standing rule, and it's there because DYK is specifically set up to feature new material. PS: I didn't say the hook was fine. I said the quote was intact in the source but not in the article, and that is a problem. One of many. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can't help quotes. I never invoke WP:QUOTEFARM and always try to minimise usage of quotes. What recycled stuff?? Sorry but you are starting to really annoy me know on these DYK noms. You say "you managed to get past A5" as if it's me who has passed the hook, which, by the way, there is nothing wrong with. You are taking things to the extreme, no one else does this like you do. Another reviewer needed. AARON• TALK 21:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Aaron/Calvin, BMS is right: rules are rules. It shouldn't take too much work though, write a proper lede for one and paraphrase that paragraph that was copied (it's terribly written, but that's neither here nor there). Any comparisons with other songs, on the album or her earlier work? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Can someone clarify what actually needs to be changed? I don't see where all this copied text supposedly is. AARON• TALK 16:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since my original description was apparently unclear, I'm deleting the duplicated paragraph in question, which was subsequently slightly edited from its original Lotus form. As Crisco says, a rewritten section, plus other material and an improved lede, should be all that's needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this is OK now. Date and length are good, sources are also fine; the article's decently written and well laid-out. The rewrite seems to have taken care of the offending paragraph and the lede is better now. However, I think the hook could be snappier; I suggest something like the following. Prioryman (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the Christina Aguilera and Cee Lo Green song "Make the World Move" features a "bonkers arrangement"?