Template:Did you know nominations/Congregation Albert

(

)

... that Congregation Albert was given its name after the right to name the synagogue was auctioned off for $250?

Created by Epeefleche (talk). Self-nominated at 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC).

~~:* New enough, long enough, meets core content policies. Hook cited to RS. GTG. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)~~

Actually, I've just noticed that there is some close paraphrasing. For example: "Congregation Albert is the oldest continuing Jewish organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico." (article); "Congregation Albert: The Oldest Continuing Jewish Organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico" (source). There are a few other instances, it seems. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There were actually two refs in the body of the text in the article. One ref says "Albuquerque's Congregation Albert, founded in 1897, is the oldest continuing Jewish organization in New Mexico." The second ref says "Founded in September 1897, Congregation Albert is Albuquerque's— and New Mexico's— oldest continuing Jewish house of worship." And I've now added a third ref, which says: "Congregation Albert is the oldest continuing Jewish organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico." The text in the article reflects some of the words that are common to both the two (now three) refs. But is an amalgamation of the two (now three) refs (and of course amalgamations are less likely to suffer from close para copyvio concerns). Some of the words in common are Congregation/Albert/oldest/Jewish. But those are immutable, I believe. See also in this regard WP:LIMITED. I've worked with some of the other words, to address your concerns. And I've gone through the entire article to address your concerns there as well. Also, as you've probably noticed, the bulk of the "catches" in the close para detector are immutables -- dates, names, numbers, addresses, and the like. Epeefleche (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Restoring original tick. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

How about writing this actively rather than passively:
ALT1: ... that the Grunsfeld family of New Mexico won the right to name Congregation Albert for $250? Yoninah (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah. I'm happy to have it be active. But the Alt IMHO is inferior in two ways. First -- it adds, and adds to the front of the hook no less, "the Grunsfeld family of New Mexico" -- which is a non-notable addition. Second, the focus of the DYK, "Congregation Albert", is pushed to the end -- it is best for the focus of the DYK to be at the beginning of the hook. IMHO. How about the following, or anything similar that addresses those two concerns (you can add "New Mexico" before synagogue if you think that better) ...

ALT2: ... that Congregation Albert was named by a family that won the right to name the synagogue for $250?