Template:Did you know nominations/Centripetal Spring Armchair

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) 14:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Centripetal Spring Armchair

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Centripetal Spring Armchair of 1849 (pictured), one of the first modern office chairs, was unsuccessful outside the USA because it was considered immorally comfortable?

Created/expanded by Sandstein (talk). Self nom at 21:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Cancer epigenetics.  Sandstein  21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Date and length check out as well as the ref for the incredibly fun hook. The only thing that makes me a little uncomfortable is that the sentence with the fact for the hook seems to be closely paraphrased from the source. the article states "international reaction to the chair was negative: it was deemed immoral because it was too comfortable," while the ref says "International reaction to the chair, however, was negative. It was so comfortable that people deemed it immoral." all of the words are exactly the same just in a slightly different order which can still be a copyright issue. Fix this and the hook is good to go.--Found5dollar (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Changed to "the chair had little success outside the USA", although frankly there are only so many ways one can rephrase a fact from a source without potentially changing its meaning. This slightly paranoid attitude to plagiarism is what makes me wary of the "close paraphrasing" approach: as long as the source is properly attributed, I would rather err on the side of matching its phrasing more closely than not, because I consider verifiability more important than originality.  Sandstein  06:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• All set. I agree witht he idea of "verifiability is more important that originality," and I have never brought up close paraphrasing in a review before, but for some reason this one just stood out as way too close to comfort for me. But all is good now.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)