- 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 Yoninah (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Caroline Bishop edit
Pestalozzi-Fröbel-Haus trained teachers
- ... that when the Berlin college for kindergarten teachers (pictured) needed holiday cover in 1883 they sent for Caroline Bishop from England?
- ALT1:... have a go!
- Reviewed: QPQ = Henry Bradford Endicott
Created by Victuallers (talk). Self-nominated at 21:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC).
New enough, long enough (3663 B), and well sourced. Inclusion in ODNB gives clear notability to the subject. However, spot checking found copied text from the sources; in particular the whole phrase "tried unsuccessfully to get the society to adopt the teaching methods of the Pestalozzi-Froebel House" comes verbatim from the Practical Visionaries source, and the appearance of the hook in the article, "whilst its director, Annette Hamminck-Schepel, was on vacation", is almost the same as the phrase "while its director, Annette Hamminck-Schepel, was on holiday" from the same source (with inconsistent wording changes that in one case change from American to British wording and in the other case change in the opposite direction). This is unacceptable for Wikipedia and unacceptable for DYK. Everything needs to be written in your own words, not copied, and not copied with minor wording changes. Only if this is completely rewritten with fresh wording could this become acceptable. This is especially worrisome behavior from an established editor with many past DYKs. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I corrected this error sometime ago and I thought I had posted here but obviously not. Thanks for the review and reminders. Not sure how I made the error, but it happened. I would draw reassurance for the large number of articles that have been successfully reviewed, but I guess my mistake might be seen, by some, as permission to pessimistically speculate. Thanks anyway Victuallers (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I think we're good to go now. I did look around at your other current DYK nominations and didn't see anything worth commenting on, so I'll accept that this was a one-time lapse. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
