Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Shields (police commissioner)
- 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 Mentoz86 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Mark Shields (police officer)[edit]
- ... that the number of murders in Jamaica dropped 20% during Mark Shields' first year as Deputy Police Commissioner of the Jamaica Constabulary Force?
Created/expanded by Quant18 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 00:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Well-written and interesting with no apparent BLP issues. Well sourced, and spot-checks show no copyvio problem. New enough, long enough. Good to go. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article may be too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "encourage police departments throughout the Caribbean to adopt more advanced forensic and technological techniques in the course of their crime-fighting efforts" with "calling on Caribbean police organisations to adopt a more foresenic and technological approach to their crime-fighting effort", or "Hundreds of reporters descended on the Jamaica Pegasus Hotel where Woolmer's body was found, and they turned to Shields for answers" with "Hundreds of reporters...descended on the Pegasus hotel where Woolmer was murdered, and the one person they all want to talk to is Shields". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Are those all the examples? It will be much more efficient if Quant18 can deal with all the objections at once. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, they're examples of the type of problems present. A thorough run-through is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have done a thorough check and find no other problems. May I assume you accept this? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- 'Fraid not. You had previously indicated you have difficulty with issues of plagiarism and close paraphrasing, if I recall correctly? Further examples: "His appointment was seen as a signal of closer cooperation between the British and Jamaican police" vs "It described his appointment as a signal towards much closer cooperation between British and Jamaican police", or "He also placed a great deal of emphasis on community involvement in policing" vs "Shields places great importance on community involvement in crime fighting". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- They don't appear to be too close to me, esp. when I compare the full sentences, but I am no expert. --PFHLai (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see them as problems either, but it will be easier for Quant18 to shuffle the words than to argue. Does Nikkimaria have any other examples, or is this the complete list? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I suggest the nominator perform a careful comb-through of sources to address all potential issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I took a shot at shuffling the phrases that upset Nikkimaria. I take it for granted that the nominator has performed a careful comb-through of sources. So, assuming Nikkimaria is not holding back other concerns, this should be ready for another quick review. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I suggest the nominator perform a careful comb-through of sources to address all potential issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- 'Fraid not. You had previously indicated you have difficulty with issues of plagiarism and close paraphrasing, if I recall correctly? Further examples: "His appointment was seen as a signal of closer cooperation between the British and Jamaican police" vs "It described his appointment as a signal towards much closer cooperation between British and Jamaican police", or "He also placed a great deal of emphasis on community involvement in policing" vs "Shields places great importance on community involvement in crime fighting". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have done a thorough check and find no other problems. May I assume you accept this? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Just to move this along without undue delays and to set everyone's mind at ease, perhaps you could confirm that you are not aware of any other issues with this article. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Does the nominator believe that there are no further instances of close paraphrasing? If so, I'd be happy to take another look. The tactic of fixing only the specific examples raised, though, isn't really effective, as I only looked far enough to know that there are problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is of course no "ownership" of any article or nomination. We are all working together to get new articles to the stage when they are ready for the front page, fixing problems where we can or reporting them where we need help. But as the editor who reported that this article was good to go after a spot check, I am happy to report that I have now done an extremely thorough comb-through and am sure there are no further instances of "close paraphrasing". I also assume the nominator submitted the article in good faith after checking that it had no problems from their point of view. But each editor has their own standards. This is to take Nikkimaria up on the kind offer to take another look and report on findings. Thanks in advance, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've made some edits to the article in an effort to address the issues. I think the material cited to FN17 still needs a bit of tweaking. There are also some verifiability problems - for example, the bit about escaping one's roots is misquoted - but these are beyond the scope of a DYK review. Therefore, once FN17 is edited, I think this will be ready for a third-party reviewer to give it the go-ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I've made some small tweaks. Hope this is good enough. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)- Hello? 12 days have passed .... --PFHLai (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've made some edits to the article in an effort to address the issues. I think the material cited to FN17 still needs a bit of tweaking. There are also some verifiability problems - for example, the bit about escaping one's roots is misquoted - but these are beyond the scope of a DYK review. Therefore, once FN17 is edited, I think this will be ready for a third-party reviewer to give it the go-ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is of course no "ownership" of any article or nomination. We are all working together to get new articles to the stage when they are ready for the front page, fixing problems where we can or reporting them where we need help. But as the editor who reported that this article was good to go after a spot check, I am happy to report that I have now done an extremely thorough comb-through and am sure there are no further instances of "close paraphrasing". I also assume the nominator submitted the article in good faith after checking that it had no problems from their point of view. But each editor has their own standards. This is to take Nikkimaria up on the kind offer to take another look and report on findings. Thanks in advance, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Does the nominator believe that there are no further instances of close paraphrasing? If so, I'd be happy to take another look. The tactic of fixing only the specific examples raised, though, isn't really effective, as I only looked far enough to know that there are problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, they're examples of the type of problems present. A thorough run-through is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Are those all the examples? It will be much more efficient if Quant18 can deal with all the objections at once. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
One source gives 40%, one gives 20%. Which is correct? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the ref for 40% drop in murder rate. It's okay as source for a dropping murder rate. However, it does not specify when, probably Shields's whole tenure, rather than the first year. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to go. Paraphrasing checked against this source with no problems. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the ref for 40% drop in murder rate. It's okay as source for a dropping murder rate. However, it does not specify when, probably Shields's whole tenure, rather than the first year. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
