Template:Did you know nominations/Robert A. Brooks

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) 20:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert A. Brooks

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that when telecommunications entrepreneur Robert A. Brooks built his corporate headquarters in St. Louis, he spelled out the company's name in Morse code through the shapes of the windows?
  • Reviewed: Edward Porter Alexander

Created by Elonka (talk). Self nominated at 15:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

• New enough. Long enough. Hook tweaked - subject must be in bold. Article appears well cited. The hook idea is good, but the hook does not quite match up with the article itself, "the building featured the company's name spelled out in morse code in the southern facade of the windows", and the second ref (first one does not mention Morse Code) states "a fenestration pattern spells out the name of the company in Morse code". QPQ needed. Dup detector shows up close paraphrasing such as "cencom cable associates and brooks fiber properties both of which were sold for billions of dollars in" compared to "cencom cable associates and brooks fiber properties two companies that he sold for billions of dollars in" in ref 1. I don't understand why there are seven bare URLs at the end of the References section? Edwardx (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• That was quick! Thanks for the review. To answer your questions:

• Fenestration pattern means "arrangement of windows across the facade of a building". I chose a more common-language interpretation of this. I also added another source (Post-Dispatch) with simpler wording, "the windows in the back spell out ..." but if you'd like to rework the hook, I'm open to that?
• For the dup detector, I think the sentence is okay as-is, but am open to suggestions if you feel strongly that it should be reworded.
• For the bare URLs, that was just because the article was in-process. They have been fixed.  :)
• QPQ in-process, I haven't forgotten! QPQ done: Edward Porter Alexander. --Elonka 04:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• (additional note) I've added an image to the article, which we could probably add to the DYK. Would you be open to that?

Thanks, --Elonka 02:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that when telecommunications entrepreneur Robert A. Brooks built his corporate headquarters (pictured) in St. Louis, the building's windows spelled out the name of the company in Morse code? Elonka 03:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that when telecommunications entrepreneur Robert A. Brooks had his corporate headquarters (pictured) built in St. Louis, the arrangement of windows spelled out the company's name in Morse code?

• Thanks for doing the QPQ, but you also need to check for paraphrasing/copyvio, regardless of it passing GA. I've tweaked your ALT1 to create an ALT2, which I feel is clearer. I think you need to reword that sentence, and your seeming reluctance might suggest that there may be other paraphrasing/copyvio issues. Is it possible to find an online source for the frist source, his obituary, as it cited seven times? I'm not sure if the image licence is suitable for it to appear on the front page. Edwardx (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the image, it is freely licensed, relevant, and already in the article. It appears to comply with everything at Wikipedia:Did you know#Images?

• Regarding the cited obituary, I'm not aware of any freely available online version, but there are some behind registration, such as here.[1] I found a copy through Newsbank, if you have access to a library database, or I can email you a copy if you want.
• Regarding the challenged sentence, I reworded the lead paragraph a bit.
• Thanks for the suggestion of alternate hook, ALT2 is fine with me. --Elonka 20:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Agreed, the image is fine for the front page. As for the obit, I found a free one in under a minute, and have added the URL to your reference. Dup detector: WP article and obit compared raises copyvio issues such as "a founding director of onecomm communications which later became part of nextel communications" which is identical to the source. My earlier concerns were justified, and I think you need to go through the whole article checking for copyvio/close paraphrasing. Edwardx (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link. I have reviewed the dup detector's list, but I'm not seeing any copyvio issues. Regarding the Onecomm sentence, it would seem to fall under WP:LIMITED. I checked several sources and they were all stating the OneComm involvement in pretty much the same way.[2] It's not a crucial fact for the article, so I just went ahead and deleted the sentence. Will that be sufficient to clear the article for DYK? --Elonka 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• New Reviewer Requested. The initial nom was reviewed by Edwardx (talk · contribs), however he has not returned to the nomination page for over two weeks. There have been three nudges on his talkpage by both myself and BlueMoonset,[3][4][5] but without response. Perhaps someone else could doublecheck the article and approve it for DYK? Thanks, --Elonka 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm reluctant to return to this nom, as I'm unconvinced that the author is sufficiently willing to address copyvio/close paraphrasing concerns. Edwardx (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Edwardx, your assumptions of bad faith are unwelcome and are bordering on personal attacks. I have read every single comment you have posted, I have reviewed the dup detector lists several times, yet I have seen no instances of copyvio/close paraphrasing. Just because the dup detector flags a phrase such as "Brooks founded Cencom Cable Associates" does not mean it is a copyright violation. If you have a specific actionable concern, you are welcome to bring it up, but other than that, it is not appropriate to repeatedly state vague and unactionable accusations, nor is it appropriate to be making personal accusations about what I am or am not willing to do. An author's "willingness" to make an edit is not a relevant reason to reject a DYK nom. The point here is to review the article, not the author. --Elonka 19:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have gone over the article from top to bottom, and see no issues of close paraphrasing or copyvios. It would be appreciated if someone else could please review the article and approve it for DYK, thanks. --Elonka 18:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• I was asked to determine whether or not there were issues of close paraphrasing in this article. On spotchecking, I found some instances where the cited source did not appear to support the material being cited - for example, the first three sentences of Career. I do not see close paraphrasing with the current sourcing but would like to have the correct sources paired with the material to make sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for your assistance. I've added in a couple more sources and expanded the early career section a bit. If you have any other questions, please let me know. --Elonka 17:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  Okay. Sourcing looks better and I'm still not seeing anything too concerning as far as paraphrasing is concerned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks. Since the original reviewer has withdrawn from the discussion (or said he was "reluctant to return"), all we need now is someone else to approve the article for DYK. --Elonka 12:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• - Hook is interesting, in article, and cited to an online source. New enough, long enough, referenced to reliable sources, inline citations, no copy-vio issues or close paraphrasing. Article is neutral. Nominator has reviewed other article. Ready for DYK. Cpuser20 (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Forgot something: photo is public domain. Cpuser20 (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)