Talk:Linda Finch

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Evaluating for copyvio

Details about starting the rewrite

CaroleHenson we can reconvene here so as not to make a jumble of the CCI page. This article will be harder to process than others because it has significant content that was not written by DC. However, from the first version of the article as created by DC, I can see there are challenges. From this version my next step normally would be to see if any of the text from sources that can't be checked (aren't available online) is still in the article, in which case it would be presumptively deleted. But I see that Pelt is no longer in the article Civil Air Patrol is no longer in the article And those present a problem because what I have most often seen in DC's work is that he later switched citations to other sources (that is, he changed citations to point elsewhere than from where he actually lifted text), so that a) results in failed verification (as the source he switched to didn't always verify all the content), and b) means that if you just check content against what is in the article now, we may miss the real source of copyvio. So, I'm afraid one has to go diff by diff. Do you have the Pelt book? I see another big problem in the very first version in that many of the sources used are not reliable sources. The same problem results; DC often later switched those to other (reliable) sources, which obscures the copyvio, because the citation pointing at text isn't always the one it was taken from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC) The basic problem here is that almost all of the first diff is likely to be copyvio from sources that are inaccessible or no longer available, so we have to determine if any of that text is still in the article and presumptively delete or rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Sure enough, as in other articles, we find much later, in this series of edits that DC replaces those sources with other sources. Often when he did that, the copyvio from the original source remained, and/or the text is not verified by the new source. So it will take some elbow grease to sort this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict) SandyGeorgia, Thanks for your reply here about next steps for ensuring that there are no copyright violations. Between Doug Coldwell and Aussie Article Writer, there are about 220 versions that would need to be reviewed. I am not sure, but I am wondering if it would be easier and cleaner to start a new draft of the article using the cited sources and rewrite the article in draft space or a sandbox, with proper paraphrasing, from scratch. If there was content copied from another source, that would not be picked up in the rewrite. That would require this article to be deleted and the clean article moved over to article space with this title. What do you think about that? I would be happy to do it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I don't have the Pelt book. But I could see if I could find it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Do you have Butler, Duffy or Jones? If not, text from those sources (if written by DC) should be WP:PDEL'd. Holy cow, if you are willing to rewrite the article, that would SURELY be a better use of everyone's time. Because ... from what I've seen of DC's work so far, the content is almost never supported by the sources, because he retrofit sources later that obscured copyvio. In article like this, where good editors worked on top of his original content, who knows what we ended up with, and checking through it all will be horribly time consuming. If you're game to work that way, I say we put a note on the CCI page saying you are rewriting in draft space. But as I said above, the problem is that we don't know how much of the wording in the original article creation was lifted from those sources, which aren't accessible, so you almost have to start over, rewriting everything in your own words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC) The Von Pelt book is on archive.org here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Excellent; examining that will at least give us an idea whether there is copyvio in the first version. If so, this will be a slog. If not, more encouraging. Do you have the WP:Who Wrote That? extension? It could be very useful in deciding whether to start from scratch here and is worth installing; it identifies specific passages written by each editor. I am at the end of a long day and headed for bed now, but will catch up with you tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict) The Von Pelt book is on archive.org here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, I would be happy to rewrite the article from scratch. I have access to Pelt - and I will create content only from that and the sources that I can access. My first place to start would be the books that are listed in Sources. I found out that I made 113 edits, and I remember Finch is very interesting. This would mean that I would start the article in Draft or sandbox space. When done, ask for this article to be deleted. Then move the rewrite back to Linda Finch in article space.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I am confused. If I am doing a complete rewrite, why do I need to use the WP:Who Wrote That? extension?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) You don't ... I was just hoping to save you from having to do that, but since you are willing, that is much better news. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Excellent; that is very good news. I'll go put a note on the CCI that work is underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) PS, when you are ready to move the new article in, ping me and I will help you explain what needs to be done to get the old version copyvio-deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I went ahead and installed the extension - it's pretty cool. In this case, though, the edits are kind of piecemeal. Hmmm. It might be useful. I will think about it. Yes, I will check in with you when the new clean article (rewrite) is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Clean, rewritten draft

collapsing detailed conversation about issues resolved with the new Linda Finch article, just click to see the section

SandyGeorgia I have completed adding content to the Draft:Linda Finch based upon the sources that were in the article. There is some information that I didn't find in the sources. I would like to do a compare between the current Linda Finch article and the draft to see I can research for a source. I will also do some copyediting and check to see if the current article has some things worded better than I did it - I am sure there will be some of that due to the number of editors who have edited the article. It doesn't matter to me at what point the existing article is removed - and the draft moved over. Do you have a preference?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC) MER-C; CaroleHenson has rewritten this DC article in her draft space. The article is unlike most DC articles I submit to WP:CP because it had a high percentage of copyedits thanks to CaroleHenson. It was created by DC, but is now only 43% DC content because CaroleHenson has 33%. She has agreed above that it would be better to completely delete the DC version to install her new rewrite, rather than trying to tease out the copyvio, which is surely present from the first version. Is it possible for you to delete it per WP:DCGAR and WP:PDEL even with the low DC percentage, or do we need to go to WP:CP, or what process do your recommend for completely replacing the DC content with content rewritten by Carole? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC) As an FYI, I ran the copyvio check and was astounded by the percentage likely for the PBS article - I think 63.9%. That's because I added quotes that appear in the PBS article. I am happy to take them out if that would be better. There is also a hit for a block of text that appears to be copied from the Wikipedia article at peekyou.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I went ahead and removed two quotes - one of which was quite long - and the numbers are much better. There is a remaining quote here: PBS comments about Finch's flight, "Though others have recreated Earhart's flight, Finch is the first to use the same make and model plane as Earhart and to make the attempt with only a pilot and navigator." I have been stumped on paraphrasing that one, so I thought it cleaner to make it a quote since it's an assertion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I don't worry about one-sentence quoting. Also, don't worry about interpreting Earwig results too literally-- Earwig is fairly useless anyway. If we don't hear from MER-C by the morning, we can check with someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Ok, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) SandyGeorgia, I have finished the comparison between Linda Finch and Draft:Linda Finch. There are some items that I could not find in the cited sources - and I don't remeber running across them. I typed them up on the draft talk page at Draft talk:Linda Finch#Rewrite_of_the_article so that it would roll forward with the article. I wonder if these edits were made by someone who knew the family. I had planned on using verbiage from the current article for wordsmithing, but I found a number of copy/paste issues during the rewrite and I would need to ensure that I am not introducing anything back that wasn't found from a cited source. I think it is better to leave the article as-is for the moment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) What you found is typical for what I have seen in all DC content. My impression is that he entered text from one source (perhaps unidentified) and later cited it to other sources. And in EVERY DC article I have looked at, stuff is just made up. So if something goes missing from the current version, I would expect that and trust your scholarship. At any rate, hopefully MER-C will tell us if there is a way to make the whole current version eventually go away in spite of your contribs being equal to DC's. It is near impossible to clean up DC's work without starting over. This is part of why I've sent so many of his articles to WP:CP; when you come across so much content that is not in the cited sources, and then see diff by diff how often he entered content and later changed the citations, the suggestion is that the content actually came from elsewhere and could be copvyio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) PS, I'm not good at image copyright issues, but I am suspicious of the lead image. I found images and a YouTube of her later in life, and I can't convince myself that image is from 2007 (she looks younger), and yet it is no longer available on Flicker. Do you know a good image person who might have a look at the licensing ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC) SandyGeorgia I did a search on the image in google here, and while I couldn't find the same exact photo, this is very much what she looked like during the 1997 flight. Same exact haircut, looked to be the same age, etc. I wonder if the image was taken off Flickr due to copyright issues. My take is that it would be best to remove the image and try contacting her for a photo that she could donate to the public domain. Yes, re previous pattern of behavior. I also noticed that there were multiple citations with the same url - I think so that it didn't show how much content came from one source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Yes (sigh); the more familiar I become with his work, the more eyebrows are raised. This is why I believe deleting all of his original content and starting over is best, but in this case, I am unsure how to get the current version deleted since you have so heavily contributed (when the article is all or mostly DC, we can send it to WP:CP to be nuked). If we don't hear from MER-C today, I'll ping others, but the copyright admins are SO overworked that I don't like to overburden them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC) SandyGeorgia I am confused by in this case, I am unsure how to get the current version deleted since you have so heavily contributed. Do you mean that I could be considered a contributor to copyright violations? Or that it will be hard for someone to accept that I did a clean-up of the article from a good place? Re: deletion, how about using CSD with Criteria #12 copyright violations, providing the link to the draft?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC) No, I don't mean that at all! When a known copyright violator has contributed most or almost all of the content on an article, we can WP:PDEL (presumptively delete) the whole thing. That is, we can send his articles to WP:CP, get the whole thing nuked, and start over (which is best in every case I've looked at). When another editor has contributed good content, we can no longer use that option to nuke. That is, when a good editor has added good content, we can't just wipe out your contribs, so that makes cleanup much harder, as we have to tease out your edits from his. If we used CSD12, then we'd be saying your contribs were also copyright violations. As least that is my understanding, which is why I want to ask admins how to best proceed here. That is, if you've given us permission to nuke your previous content along with his, can we just do that and start over, or do we have to WP:REVDEL a gazillion versions to get rid of DC content here ? There is no concern about your rewrite and clean-up; the concern is how to get rid of DC content when it is so interspersed now with your good edits. As I'm still learning the ropes on this myself, hope to hear from a copyvio admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Just having the WP:REVDEL process means that there are specific editors who add copyright violations to an article. The investigation was specifically targeted at DC and I think also the Aussie named editor. I think we could try the CSD process, referencing the investigation, that the approach was to rewrite, and that the rewrite is at Draft:Linda Finch Just a suggestion. I could do the nomination myself, if you like. By the way, I went ahead and removed the image of Linda Finch from the draft. I think that since Flickr totally deleted the image, it's very likely a copyright issue. I did add an {{External media}} template with a link to her image for the time being. I cannot find an email for LF, but I have found an address that she had at some point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I also nominated the file for deletion at commons here. I think they have seven days to sort out whether a deletion is needed or not - and DC was contacted. The commons folks will know much better than I whether the file being deleted from Flickr means what I think it means.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I know how to initiate the CSD process (I'm pretty much monopolizing the WP:CP page with DC content right now), but that process requires a seven-day wait. If we can get an answer from a copyvio admin sooner on this talk, we might save time and get your rewrite up sooner. @Wizardman and Moneytrees: might one of you read through this discussion and tell me if I can send this article to WP:CP in spite of Carole's contribs, so we can then put in her clean rewrite ? Or whether one of you wants to revdel a gazillion revisions? Or what is the fastest/best way forward here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC) As long as you notate the new draft is good then sending it to CP probably is the fastest way; if we're lucky that can get deleted and the draft moved over right away, worst case it waits a week. Wizardman 22:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Great, thanks Wizardman ... I'll put it up at CP then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC) CaroleHenson I have spotchecked, but can you verify that you have checked Every Single newspaper clipping? Earwig cannot detect copyvios in news clippings, and relying on Earwig isn't sufficient with DC content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) SandyGeorgia It wasn't so much that I checked each page - but I paraphrased and wrote content from what I read from each source. Before I saved what I wrote, I sometimes copied the verbiage from the LF article if it was better than I wrote (and was not a copyvio issue and only covered what came from that source). You could see from the edit summary that I worked one source at a time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC) And, that I noted if I didn't use a source at all and why... so the edit summary is an audit trail of each source that had been in the LF article. This is clear if you go to "oldest" page of the revision history.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC) SandyGeorgia I wonder if I can make a url of a newspaper.com article by selecting OCR text ... and then running the dup detector - i.e., one source at a time. Let me see. If so, I could provide links from the dup detector to check out whatever newspapers you'd like me to check out... or the ones with the most citations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I cannot do that. The url doesn't change at all if I ask to see the OCR text. Sorry for the trip down a rabbit hole.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Even if it could, too-close paraphrasing is rarely picked up by any of the copyvio tools, because it also involves copying the same structure, even when only a few words are changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @SandyGeorgia: Earwig can get newspapers results; I used it to my advantage before I was eligible for TWL when checking citations that didn't have clippings. I see the CP listing; just note when it's 100% good and we'll get the draft on the roll :) Sennecaster (Chat) 01:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Sennecaster confused; it can't get scans ??? (Heck, most of the newspaper.com scans are so poor quality that I can barely even read them.) Are you saying that when she's ready, CaroleHenson should move her draft to Talk:Linda Finch/Temp, or we should just post to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 March 28 when Draft:Linda Finch is ready to go ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC) @SandyGeorgia: Sometimes, it's magically OCR'd or something and I don't question the pixie dust and just take advantage of it. Your second question; we usually don't check presumptive deletions until a week has passed, but {{CPC|v}} (produces something along the lines of "Viable rewrite proposed") catches our eyes sooner. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Awesome, got it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Queries

First major pass and issues and responses

CaroleHenson, it feels like some DC content is still with us at Draft:Linda Finch. From Los Angeles Times In 1997, Finch planned to complete the 29,000 nautical-mile flight around the world that Amelia Earhart attempted in 1937.[1][2] Finch's flight, dubbed World Flight 1997, Where is the 29,000 cited? CH response: Flying Magazine - sentence "She [Earhart] actually completed 22,000 nautical miles of her planned 29,000 nautical mile flight." here. We still have the same language on dubbed. CH response: I can change it to "called".  Done So we need to add the other source, and take care to vary sentence structure rather than just changing wording-- that's how DC ended up with too-close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I am confused. "In 1997, Finch planned to complete the 29,000 nautical-mile flight around the world that Amelia Earhart attempted in 1937.[1][2]" - the second source is the Flying Magazine.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I am confused about your "close paraphrasing comment" - paraphrasing is changing the words. It is something I struggle with when there are only so many ways to group a set of facts. (As an FYI, I did a major rewrite of the close paraphrasing article years ago.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC) My apologies (the result of going between, article, draft and talk page :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Source: And Finch will not stop at Howland Island in the Pacific ... because runways no longer exist there. She will also bypass parts of Africa because of political turmoil. Draft: ... she could not land in some parts of Africa due to political unrest ... Nor would she land on Howland Island, because it no longer had runways there. CH response: I don't know what to say, I reworded that sentence a number of times... shortening it in the end to the key facts. Are you saying that it is not paraphrased enough? I would be happy to removed the part about political unrest, but I think we should keep Howland Island. If you start with DC's structure, even if you change words here and there, it's hard to get away from the problem. To avoid too-close paraphrasing, it's best to set the sources aside and write from memory, in your own words, and then come back and see if what we write in our own words conforms to the source. I don't think you should remove any of it, but the structure and wording is the same as the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Oh my. I started with the section headings, infobox, and categories from the initital article. After that, I put the info where I thought it should go. For instance, I realized after I completed my writing that I put education (and work history while becoming education) in the Early life and education section. So, there's not a particular relationship between how the LF article is today - and where I put the content. Yes, of course, that would be the best way. In this case, though, I had reworked the sentences multiple times. It is just that when I got to the bare facts, there wasn't a slew of options. In addition, I have had some brain injury and short term memory problems and started writing at Wikipedia about 2010 or 2011 as a way to keep my brain sharp, but do deal with only so much information at a time. There is absolutely no way that I can read all of these sources, remember the specific details from each to fashion sentences, and then go back and research where I got pieces of the information from. What works the best is for me to paraphrase the best that I can and continue to massage the sentences as I go with additional information... and in a review of the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I understand (and empathize); maybe set it aside a few days and come back to it. I don't want to have the copyvio admins move it in until all traces of DC are gone. I will continue to pick away at it as I can, but dealing with DC content is beginning to wear me out :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC) SandyGeorgia, don't worry, I will do a deep scrub - with your voice in my head (Is that paraphrased enough? Is there a better way to write this paragraph so that it tells the story in a new, better way?) and I will 1) run the duplication detector and fix all issues that I find... and then provide you with links that you can click on for each comparable source - which shows a great side-by-side (as I am sure you could explain to me). 2) Make a list of close calls from each newspaper if I cannnot think how to word it better. I don't mind that kind of work at all to get to a good place... and we will get there with the focus on making a good, clean article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) From People Julie and Leslie (born in February 1969 and about 1976), and a granddaughter (born about 1995) whom she adopted. Does the source support the birth years ? That's the sort of thing DC often concocted. ([1] CH response: There are two sources for that sentence - one says that Julie was born in February 1969 ("The couple's daughter, Julie, was born in February 1969"here). Leslie's year of birth was derived (thus the "about") from his age in the other article ("and the birth of a son, Leslie, now 20" here. Perhaps 1977 would be better. Done –CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Article: She enrolled at Southwest Texas State University, where she studied accounting. Source: Finch enrolled in Southwest Texas State University to study accounting. Okay that is a good gotcha! I cannot explain it. I just edit the sentence to: "She studied accounting to further her career at Southwest Texas State University." Does that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Sure, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Article: and to hone her skills she landed the Republic P-47D Thunderbolt without power 100 times. She has raced in Nevada at the Reno Air Races. Source: CAF, who helped hone her flying skills. One of them “made me land a P-47 [World War II fighter plane] 100 times without power,” says Finch, who also races at the Reno Air Show in Nevada. Yep, my brain isn't coming up with a better paraphrase at the moment, but I will go back to the article and read the information around it tomorrow to see if I can reword this better. Same concept for the races to see if I can summarize her experiences at races more generally. It will be part of the thorough review in a new section on this talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I stopped there, but am concerned there are still remnants of the original; to avoid too-close paraphrasing, one has to try to set aside the sources while composing. I only checked those few, and stopped there, but would not want to move in the rewrite until you give assurance that you've checked every source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) It would have been better to put this reply here... but I didn't want to confuse the conversation by moving it. Short summary: I will take care of a thorough review and give you easy-to-access evidence.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Carole, this review isn't intended to be comprehensive or overwhelming; just a suggestion that you set it aside for a day and revisit to be sure you've lost all DC content, as he had serious paraphrasing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Butting in - a single random spot check gives the following: our text says, "In 1997, Finch was sued by Julie Markel for fraud, slander, libel, and breach of contract." The source text says, "Markel filed a lawsuit in Dallas against Finch personally, alleging breach of contract, fraud, libel and slander." This is too close to the text. Also from the same source, we say "In October of that year, Markel was fired by Finch for nonperformance of her duties", and the source says "Finch says she fired Markel in October 1995 for nonperfomance of duties". Personally, having dealt with these sorts of issues in the past, it's really best to stubify or even delete the article and not bother with a recreation right now. If the subject is notable, then the material will still be there a week, a month, a year down the line, when it'll be much easier to recreate from scratch, with no reliance on the DC version. Victoria (tk) 18:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Oh my goodness. These two sentences did not come from the DC version, I added that when I searched for content about Finch after 1997. What I am getting is that we cannot use "nonperformance" or the reasons for a lawsuit or its copyvio. (Nonperformance is a specific set of behaviors, which a specific meaning, so I didn't want to change it.) If that's the case, then I am gobsmacked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC) I could just be having an off-day, but I am beginning to feel that there is not a desire for this article and that there are more attempts to punch holes in the work I have done than to work with me to get to a clean version. (For instance close paraphrasing is not the same as copy-paste.) I have yet to have comments about the most recent changes I have made to the article... and I get Sandy is very busy, but there's time to post jabs before providing comment on the work I have done. This is now not boding well. If you all want to create a stub article, go for it. If you want to work with me - more than just complain (replies to specific issues and suggestions would be nice) - I am very happy to do that. If you are feeling that it is better to create a stub than to provide comments about my attempts to fix issues, go for it. I am sorry to be snarky, but I will be, that says a lot more about you than it does about me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC) CaroleHenson, I didn't mean to upset you. I apologize. I was simply checking in, peeked at a post on Sandy's page and took a quick look. I see now that you made substantial edits to this page before it went to GAN and can understand being invested in edits made to a page. Maybe the solution would be to copy the last version of this article you worked on, diff, to the draft. Once that's done then work through sentence by sentence to weed out any close paraphrasing that DC introduced. Re the lawsuit, given that both parties presumably are still living it might just be best to say that one sued the other and was subsequently fired, without the details. Just my opinion and SG might have other suggestions. Anyway, I was just passing through, and will be on my way. Apologies again. Victoria (tk) 20:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Victoriaearle, Thank you for your reply, I really appreciate it. Your idea to go to a version of the LF article is a thought, but it would mean: We would miss all the work that I did recreating the article over about 10 hours of time and another 2 or 3 in edits. (Which would be fine to remove if it wasn't better than the LF version that had been in article space.) We wouldn't have all the right sources connected with the content. We would have true copy-paste content. We would have content that wasn't covered by the sources of that version of the article. I found some other sources and in some cases correcting incorrect info. See Draft talk:Linda Finch#Rewrite of article. We wouldn't have content that I have added about Finch since 1997, like lawsuits and marriage. The draft needs some work, but it is much better and cleaner than the LF version. Re the lawsuit, sure I will make those edits. I appreciate the suggestion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Carole, I don't want this article stubbed; I want you to succeed. But my style of reviewing is just not to go point-by-point or edit-by-edit when a competent editor is on board. It is not my intent to do the work DC never did, or make up for all the faulty reviews of his content at DYK and GAN, but I'm happy to assist if I can when a good faith editor is attempting improvements. My reviewing style is to visit, offer examples, and return in a few days to see if the issues are addressed. If you get the copyvio/paraphrasing issues to the point that the draft can be moved to the article, I would be honored to help fine tune. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC SandyGeorgia Thank you for your reply. If I had a vote, I would prefer to get the full article up, too. I am not sure where to go from here. I just looked and I have more than 15 hours of work on the article with 629 versions. This is the first time since 2011 that someone has provided feedback for an article that I have worked on that doesn't want to look at the updates to see if they like them better. (group of all edits since I started getting feedback). I am prepared to go through the article for another 10 to 15 hours of comparisons to sources (I have found too many cases where information is worded differently in several sources so that fixing the article for one source creates an issue for another source - so it is more than looking at just the cited source) and edits if I don't get feedback that I am on the right track. Do you know someone that can take a look at the issues you raised and my re-writes? Can we post on a copyvio investigations page? Somewhere else?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC) I got the impression that the draft was really-really bad. I know that you don't like it, but the Earwig tool is really good at identifying cases where there is true copy-paste. I had to make a couple of tweaks, and now all that is showing up are quotes and long names for things (allowing for the fact that the buffers don't get cleared out between times the tool is run, so one can still see issues that have been fixed).–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Carole, I'm not sure if I'm not making myself clear because I've been busy, so please pardon any repetition. Copyvio is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia and needs to be deleted or revdel'd wherever it is found-- be that draft space, main space, user space, wherever. Draft:Linda Finch has still had copy-pasted text each time I have looked at it; we can't "get [that] full article up" (until we are sure it's clean) because that would be moving potential copyvio text from draft space to main space. The draft will ultimately need to have a {{db-author}} put on it so it, so it can be deleted because it's history contains copy-paste. If I edit the draft, it no longer has one author, and is no longer eligible for speedy deletion by one author. It needs to be cleaned post-haste so it can be deleted, and then a copyvio-clean version pasted in to Talk:Linda Finch/Temp, from where the copyvio admins will move the new text once they delete the old article. So, if you aren't able to go through the whole draft as I have asked a few times to make sure it is clean, that means either we let this article go (delete both the article and the draft), or <gulp> I have to go through the whole draft myself. That simply means going source by source to make sure there is no more copy-paste. I'm not thrilled about cleaning up after DC, but this article has come far enough that it seems wrong to let it to. It does still need a lot of prose work, but that can be done once it is in mainspace; it can't be moved to mainspace until we are sure it is clean. I am unable to understand what else you want me to look at; each time I come back and look at the draft, I have picked one source, looked at that source, and still found copy-pasted text. I don't need to look diff by diff to see how we got there; I only need to know if the article is copyvio-clean. If I must do this work, I have commitments all morning, so it will have to wait until I can return to it later in the day on Friday, or early Saturday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC) I am kind of confused by how you cannot understand that I was asking for feedback about specific changes/fixes that I made to the article. Instead I get another lecture about copyvio. If I wasn't dedicated to fixing the issues I wouldn't be here. You're saying you don't know what there is to answer. There are two questions I most wanted feedback on are in the following #Questions section and your talk page. And generally it would be good to get feedback about (group of all edits since I started getting feedback), but I am hearing that is not your way of operating. If someone is watching this page and can take a look at that for me, I would really really appreciate it. I am insulted when you continue to say that there are copy-paste issues. You say it in this response, but I didn't find it at all in your "Third pass" section. I am about losing hope that I can make changes that you will be happy with, particularly when I don't get "you're on the right track with these edits" feedback.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC) I'm so sorry you feel insulted; we do seem to be at a communication impasse, as I keep attempting to answer what I perceive to be the same (repeated) question from you, and then you respond that I'm repeating myself. Perhaps I am-- because from the way I see it, you keep asking me for the same question. I do understand that you want me to look at your changes in draft; I want both of us to look at the sources and check for copyvio, as that is the only reason we are at this juncture in this article's development. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC) You wrote: "I most wanted feedback on are in the following #Questions section and your talk page." I see no unanswered questions on my talk page, but I've answered same on this page several times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC) You wrote: "And generally it would be good to get feedback about group of all edits since I started getting feedback". At the risk of repeating myself again, looking at all the diffs in your draft won't help determine if there is copyvio. To get your draft up in mainspace, the only/main thing we need to examine is for copyvio (this isn't GAN, and other issues like prose or clarity can be resolved later), and that's what I've done, in every response here. Nor will looking at duplication detector output get us to where we both want to be. The only way to know if there is copyvio is to examine each source, which is what I've been doing doing, source-by-source, now again at #Third pass. (When examining those sources turns up incidental findings of non-reliable sources, I've noted that as well, only because it seems unproductive to check for copyvio in a non-RS that should be replaced anyway.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC) If we're unable to resolve our communication differences, another option for moving forward here is that I can just stub up a rewrite to put at Talk:Linda Finch/Temp; that is, I could plug in a lead, article structure, save the images, and save all the sources, and then you could work on the article after the copyvio admins have deleted what is here now and moved in the temp stub. It seems a shame to end up with only a stub, but we may be at an impasse with that the best option left to us. We are still quite a few days away from needing to make that decision (per the seven-day wait at WP:CP), so maybe in the light of a new day, we will be able to re-read and come to a better understanding of what the other is saying. The TLDR version of what I'm saying is that my purpose here is to make sure the rewrite is copyvio free, although I've been willing so far to offer other help as well (eg, pointing out non-RS that are used). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC) SandyGeorgia I just needed a bit of a break. I am back.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions

Second pass at issues and responses

As a teenager, Finch thought it would be fun to fly the gull-winged World War II Corsair fighter plane.[6] is copyvio.[2] --> Finch took an early interest in flying as a teenager, when her interest focused on the Corsair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC) I reworded the first two sentences of the paragraph to Finch became interested in flying, particularly the gull-winged World War II Corsair fighter plane.[8] She saved money for flying lessons; by 1972, at age 21.. taking out the bit about saving lunch money, which is in several sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC) During the mid-1980s she acquired a North American T-6 Texan, a World War II trainer which she restored to participate in air shows and races. Finch joined the Confederate Air Force (now the Commemorative Air Force) early in her flying career,[6] and to hone her skills she landed the Republic P-47D Thunderbolt without power 100 times. She has raced in air shows.[5]" --> During the mid-1980s she acquired a North American T-6 Texan, a World War II trainer which she restored to participate in air shows and races. After encountering resistance in a male-dominated endeavor, Finch was finally accepted into the Confederate Air Force (now the Commemorative Air Force),[6] whose members she said obliged her to "land a P-47 [World War II fighter plane] 100 times without power".[5] Move the racing in airs shows elsewhere; this bit is about her early flying history. Or delete it entirely, since it is redundant to "which she restored to participate in air shows and races". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC) I changed the initial sentences to Finch has flown in air shows worldwide for at least two decades.[12] Finch purchased a North American T-6 Texan, a World War II trainer. She restored it in the 1980s and joined the Confederate Air Force (now the Commemorative Air Force) to begin participating in air shows.[8] By about 1997, she..–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Finch's three marriages ended in divorce. See this DC clip, which uses those exact words, but we've left out more interesting context. --> That seems a harsh way to start a personal life section, and not really a topic sentence for everything in that para. It could also be viewed as redundant to the content in that para. If it must be stated, maybe something like "Finch was married and divorced three times". But I'd prefer to see the entire paragraph completely reworked, as it seems to reduce her personal life to divorce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC) I removed marriage info from "Early life and education", moved and renamed "Personal life" to "Marriages and children", removed the sentence about three marriages (since it is now four marriages anyway.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC) So, looking at two sources, I found two more bits of copy-paste; manual examination of all content is needed before moving this in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Close paraphrasing is not the same as "copy-paste". Can you tell me which paragraphs have the "two more bits of copy-paste" or otherwise help me identify what they are? I agree that more work is needed on the article. You found some definite issues. I worked it too fast. I am thinking that it will be best to copy just the final version of this draft into article space. Is this how you foresee the edits being made? It works for me if you are up to it. I had been planning on starting my thorough "good article" reviewer hat (I just have an hour or two of work to complete the article I worked on yesterday)... but evenso, you are much stricter about what you consider copyvio. So, this may be the best way if you are up for it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC) The two I found were near exact wording (what I view as more copy-paste than close paraphrasing, but perhaps I am too strict :)). Source: As a teenager, she thought it would be fun to fly a Corsair, a gull-winged World War II fighter. Article: As a teenager, Finch thought it would be fun to fly the gull-winged World War II Corsair fighter plane. Source: Her three marraiges all ended in divorce. Article: Finch's three marriages ended in divorce. Ah, those were the ones you already noted. I was thinking that you found two more issues. I agree those are too close paraphrasing. Your Corsair quote is different from what you showed above, so I am a bit confused, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Both use the same words with a bit of juggling. I don't recommend copying the draft in to the article because a) we want the current article to go away so it doesn't have to be revdel'd, and b) we could be introducing content that could need to be revdel'd. Better would be to continue combing through the sources to identify any issues, then {{db-author}} Draft:Linda Finch to remove any remote need for revdel, and then paste in a new, copyvio-clean draft at Talk:Linda Finch/Temp. I hesitate to ask copyvio admins to move text in from a draft with even a remote change of someone complaining later. I can keep checking back if that works for you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC) I think we are saying the same thing. Copy the final "clean" content, vs. all a move with all the revisions that could have copyvio issues like the "three marriages" sentence. It is perfectly fine with me that you are stricter with copyvio issues. I want the best article that can be produced, and if work needs to be done to get it there, I am fine with that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC) When you don't respond to the instances where I have read your issues, edited the article, and responded to you, should I take that to mean that you are okay with the revisions?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC) No :) If I miss responding to something, it's two different things. First, I am busy as heck and have spent my entire morning dealing with Wikipedia software errors. Second, my style of reviewing is to offer examples and then to leave time for the editor to review the entire article for same. I'm not sure if we're saying the same thing (unclear). My suggestion is that your draft should also be deleted so revdel is not needed, and if you place a copyvio clean draft at the Temp page (as used at WP:CP), copyvio admins will move it in after they delete the current article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Okay about leaving time for the edits. Going forward, if you wouldn't mind just telling me about an issue once, I would appreciate that. :) Yes, you are confirming that we both have the same frame of mind about the "clean" version of the LF article. I will wait to do any more work on the article until you have had time to respond to my updates in the previous subsection, this subsection, and the following subsection. I totally get that you are very busy and I can wait.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC) No, please don't wait for me; please check the article thoroughly and tell me when I should come back for a new look. When I come back for a new look, I start fresh. (That could mean I end up repeating things if I find same on my subsequent review :) I am not able to fix this all of DC content; if you do the work, and make sure there are no remaining issues, then I will come back to check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC) If we could double-check what I have done so far, then I will know that I am on the right track. I really don't mind waiting. It would be a big help to me and I would greatly appreciate it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Everything in this section is either resolved, or continues at #Third pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Questions

A couple of questions, addressed in other places

Copied this from User talk:SandyGeorgia. My mistake, I should have put them here. When you have a chance, would you please look at these two questions: For instance, this morning I found that there are a couple, but limited number of ways to word "Earhart tried (attempted) to become the first pilot to circumnavigate (fly around) the world (globe)." I fixed it for one source and made an issue for another. Perhaps I am thick, but I have tried to think of a new way of writing this sentence and have a hard time figuring out a new approach. This sentence makes my head pound. Much harder than the fix for political unrest and airstrip sentence your 2nd query. way it is worded in the article now). I hope that works for you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC) The first is addressed in the next section; the second is already resolved (as also indicated in the next section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Third pass

Third pass

Draft:Linda Finch at 22:35 March 30 Stewart, LA Times is clean. Plummer, People magazine is clean. Tampa Bay Times, 1997, Part 2 (citation 11 in this version) is clean (although it is twice used to cite her planes and business being at the San Antonio Airport, which I'm unable to find in the source ... perhaps this is a result of the Part 1, Part 2 problem, see next). CH:  Done Tampa Bay Times, 1997, part 1 (citation 8 in this version) is the exact same clip as citation 11, part 1-- which part is which and where's the other part? I can't find anything about prefabricated buildings in this source, so I suspect something is amiss with the citations (between part 1 and part 2). CH: It's sneaky this time. It's in the infobox "Occupation:..... "and a company that makes small prefabricated buildings" clip  Done I gave a suggestion above (at 12:53, 30 March) for how to avoid replicating the gull-winged Corsair; we still have "Finch became interested in flying, particularly the gull-winged World War II Corsair fighter plane". The Corsair is an aircraft I am very familiar with, and yet I have never heard it referred to this way in every day conversation; we can't take such original wording from the source, and saying Corsair is adequate, as the plane details can be found at that article. (I thought the part that she became interested in the Corsair as a teenager was the most relevant part of that clip, but your choice if you want to take it out. Similarly, at 12:54, 30 March, I gave a suggestion on how to reword the forced landings with the T-6, an interesting bit that is also gone now. Again, your choice, but it's not necessary to remove text that can be easily reworded). At any rate, this source is clean. CH: I am not sure what is the article, what is in the newspaper, or what you are suggesting. I just took out details to help with the copyvio issue. I didn't catch your suggestions at all. If you think that there is something that can be added back in, please feel free. I don't want to put teenager in the wrong place. (That is when flying became interesting to me, so I personally found that interesting, too. I took one for the team to get through copyvio.). Feel free to edit, but I otherwise understand that this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Stuff can be added back after you get moved in to main space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC) El Paso Times, 1997 (similar to mixup above??) is listed twice (citation 33 in this version, and citation 9). These kinds of things make checking slower going. The source does not say she founded Care Centers. CH: 2nd column, second full paragraph: “… Finch said in a disposition that she arranged for Care Centers Management Corp., her nursing home management company…”  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC) But owning is not the same as founding (she could have bought it, we can't assume, even if we suspect she founded it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC) CH: changed founded to owned - Seems easier at the moment than to think about where that may have come from. I tried poking around and didn't quickly find it. Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC) CH: combined two instances of the same source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Article: Finch's firm, World Flight, sued Markel 10 days later to ban her from speaking to potential sponsors.[33] Source: About 10 days later, World Flight sued Markel and obtained a court order banning her from speaking to scores of potential sponsors. This isn't original; we're just juggling the same words from the source. Suggestion for the whole para --> In 1997, Finch was sued by Julie Markel, who had been an employee and friend, over allegations related to the nursing homes owned by Finch. Finch's firm, World Flight, sought and obtained a court order to prevent Markel from speaking with sponsors of the Earhart re-creation.[33] CH: I love it!  Done That's as far as I can get for this middle of the night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Flying Magazine, 1996 (citation 2 in this version) Article: Earhart tried to become the first pilot to circumnavigate the world.[2] Source: Earhart was trying to become the first pilot ... to circumnavigate the globe at its equator. Suggestion: Copies the structure, and there are plenty of other ways to say "was trying to become". --->>> Finch, inspired by the deceased aviatrix Amelia Earhart – who had attempted in 1937 the first airplane flight around the world via the equator – began planning in 1991 to duplicate Earhart's doomed World Flight.[2][8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC) CH: It looks like I got part of the way there, the article said: Finch, inspired by the deceased aviatrix, began planning to duplicate Amelia Earhart's doomed 1937 World Flight in 1991 I made the additional changes per your suggestion - good summarization!  Done Article: After taking off from Lae, Papua New Guinea on June 2, 1937, Earhart was expected to land at the tiny Howland Island,[2] Source: Earhart and her navigator took off from Lae, New Guinea, for remote Howland Island, Suggestion: We can avoid replicating the structure and replicating "took off"; details about Earhart are found in her article, and we don't need to repeat that which doesn't affect Finch's story. --->>>> With her flight navigator Frederick Noonan relying on the stars at night for navigation, Earhart was expected to land at the tiny Howland Island in the South Pacific on June 2, 1937.[2][14] When they did not arrive, they were thought to have become lost.[1][13][a] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC) CH: Another excellent job!  Done Goefoundation (citation 3 in this version); before I look at this source, it would not be accepted at FAC (which is where I am accustomed to reviewing). What makes it a reliable source, and is there a better source that can be used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC) CH:, yes, I agree. It wouldn't be good for a GA, either. But it's not as bad as a speaker bio. The fact, though, that it didn't seem to make it into mainstream press probably means it's not notable to the general population of folks. If you want me to remove the couple of sentences (one in intro, one in body), I am cool with that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC) CH: I have been thinking about this one. I was about to go ahead and just delete the references to this organization, Gathering of Eagles Program, and mark it done. Then, I read the Wikipedia article (not in the best shape) and found a connection to the military. My vote is to keep it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Hartford Courant, 1997 (citation 4 in this version): This is obviously the same article as the Tampa Bay Times two-part article, creating even more citation confusion (that is utterly typical of DC's newspaper clippings). In fact, looking closely, the Tampa Bay Times article even says it comes from the Hartford Courtant. We now have three different citations pointing to the same place, and how much content we take from one article impacts whether we have substantially duplicated someone else's work. All of these citations pointing at the same place need to be fixed. DC often put in text from one source, and then juggled the citations to make it look like content came from elsewhere. We can't duplicate the entire Hartford Courant article, so the citations should be sorted so the article can be evaluated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC) CH: What three citations? I went down all the sources that were in the previous LF article, so I can see how it happened. There were some times when I skipped over content to add, and then I thought, wow - a lot of newspapers are saying this, so I'll add that content in after all. You seem to think otherwise, but I am not purposefully trying to make your life hard. I am a methodical one-thing-at-a-time after the brain injury. Just trying to do my best to get through this horrible situation - which is made much better, though, by your really helping me out. So, I greatly appreciate the way things are going!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC) CH: The Hartford Courant, 1997 and the Tampa articles are not exactly the same article. They weren't published on the same day. They have differt titles. The first four or so paragraphs are the same, and then the content differs. It looks like the Tampa article has more background content "doting grandmother", "she is juggling the demands", "We weren't out of control", etc. I don't know what the third article is. I compared article titles and they all look to be different.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC) I'm still not finding the pre-fabricated buildings; perhaps I'm just missing it because reading these news clippings is so miserable ??? Ah ha, it's not in the text, it's in the little "infobox" in the article, found. CH: If you don't have an account with newspapers.com, which allows you to search by words, you can go towards the bottom of the clipping and click on OCR text and do a regular Command/Ctrl F and search that way. Sometimes the words are jumbled, but it's a good quick option before reading the entire article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC) I'm also not finding the cattle ranch ? ":CH: It's in the first column, I think the 7th full paragraph (my mouse keeps speeding up and shooting up, down, etc. the page. See: "Finch’s 300-acre farm near Mason… <lots of words> her two dozen head of beef cattle." There are more sources that call it a cattle ranch or cattle farm if necessary. Unless you say otherwise, I call this  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC) So sorting the citations, and making sure the right citation is pointed at each bit of text, is needed before one can check for copyright issues. I hope this gives you enough examples for what kind of work remains before this is ready for a move to main space (meaning, before we delete the draft and replace it with a clean version). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Washington Post Booth 1996, citation 28 in this version: Source: Flying in the same model aircraft piloted by the fallen aviatrix six decades ago, the Texas businesswoman completed her 73-day journey here this morning after 225 hours aloft and 34 touchdowns in 19 countries spanning 26,004 nautical miles. Article: Finch's flight ... was 26,004 nautical miles (41,850 km) in total ... She made 34 stops in 19 countries,[28] ... Of the 73 days of the journey, 225 hours were aloft,[28] ... Over the course of the trip, she made visits to meaningful sites, like the Martin Luther King School for Girls in Dakar and, in Egypt, at the Queen of Hatshepsut temple.[28] Suggestions: not necessarily copyvio, as how many ways can one state numbers, but we're replicating some bits unnecessarily (eg "aloft"). --->>>. Finch's flight was patterned on Earhart's route[27] – flying eastward along the equator[16] – and took 73 days.[28] She was in the air for 225 hours while flying 26,004 nautical miles (41,850 km) and stopping 34 times in 19 countries.[28] She flew over[16] or touched down on five continents.[20] Her cruising speed was 90 miles per hour (140 km/h). [25][d] (Mental floss is not a reliable source, and introducing the word meaningful is borderline POV). Her stops included the Martin Luther King School for Girls in Dakar and the Queen of Hatshepsut temple in Egypt.[28] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC) CH: Made edits per the suggestion. Another great job! Removed the content and citation attributed to Higgins/Mental Floss.  Done I had a hard time finding the info about the computer/internet/fax that came from Mental Floss - but I can try again - and then also try for cruising speed and more info about the longest leg. But it's not make or break info in my opinion. It can always be added later.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Carole, I think if you do more of this kind of individual review of sources (and sourcing), you'll be almost there. Prose can be polished later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC) PilotsPost gives nothing to indicate it is a reliable source, so I will wait for it to be replaced before checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC) CH: My immediate reaction when I saw that page was that it looks like a personal site. But, then I looked to find out this: "approved by the editorial staff of Pilot’s Post." on the Contact / About page. And, then considered "Pilot's Post is an online aviation repository focusing on aviation events, history, products and stories in South Africa." And thought, "I cannot compare what I would expect to see on a UK/US/Canadian website. Whatever you think is fine with me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC) CH: Update: Just realized that you specifically said to remove the content.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC) PBS Newshour Does not say the tail was gone. But found that in the Arizona Star. CH: Yes, there are two citations for that part of the sentence, PBS says "one says wings were off, the engines had been sold", the other says wing and tail are gone. I had just combined two separate bits for "the engines and the tail were gone". Since this is not a failed verification issue, this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Does not say the total cost of the trip was 4.5M (Pratt & Whitney sponsored the $4.5 million World Flight 1997 trip,[19]), rather, says they donated that much. Changed to say that P&W donated $4.5 million. Added a sentence about needing $1 million more. Both edits are here. The source mentions the two different part of the project - flight and educational program. About the $1 million, the article says "Finch is counting on $1 million more in donations to help mount the expedition."  Done, if you are happy with the verbiage.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC) CH: Does not say Libya was politically dangerous, rather that she couldn't get permission to overfly. So no copyright issues, just failed verification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC) CH: I removed Lybia and its cite tag. Good catch! Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Libya (and much more) is in this source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Just saw this in my double-check of this section. Thanks for that. I updated the Linda Finch article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Mental Floss is not a reliable source, so I'll check that content after the source is replaced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC) CH: As I said in this update Removed the content and citation attributed to Higgins/Mental Floss.  Done. I had a hard time finding the info about the computer/internet/fax that came from Mental Floss - but I can try again - and then also try for cruising speed and more info about the longest leg. But it's not make or break info in my opinion. It can always be added later.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Hartford Courant Source does not say she used a bamboo pole to communicate with her navigator, rather that she picked one up similar to Earhart's. But Van Pelt, p. 220 does say that, so it could be used instead. CH: I changed the sentence to "Like Earhart, Finch had a bamboo pole that she could use to speak to her navigator.[23]" which is covered by the source. Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC) "Before that, her longer legs were about 1,000 miles (1,600 km), taking eight to ten hours." Very close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC) CH: I removed the sentence. This seems to be one of those - only-so-many-ways to word the info.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Van Pelt, p. 220: Does not say hourly internet updates (but I believe I saw that in another source). CH: I had the wrong page #, it's 161. I made the the change. Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Very close paraphrasing, but not really needed here, could be removed: "completed the World Flight 1997, the plane made a transatlantic flight, commemorating Earhart's flight over the Atlantic." So minor paraphrasing cleanup needed, and verification issues, but nothing major re copy-paste. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC) CH: Removed it.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Arizona Daily Star Does not say they spent 1.5 million on the plane, rather the flight. But Christianity Today does say they helped buy the plane, or some such, so it could be used. No copyvio concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC) CH: It sounds as if there's no issue. Christianity Today During the flight, Finch noted her position every half hour, aided by satellite navigational equipment. It was important to monitor the positioning because some countries required permits to enter their airspace. She used the internet to convey her feelings and respond to correspondence.[9] much too-close paraphrasing. CH: Finch used modern satellite navigational gear to ensure that she remained on course and on schedule.  Done if you are okay with the wording.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC) The source says the website was accessed an amazing 30 million times ... we are very close to that, and there are many other ways to say this ... 30 million people viewed her website or anything ... CH: I changed it to There were about 30 million times that people viewed the website during Finch's trip. It would not be correct to say it was 30 million people, because there are likely a number of people who checked the status more than one time.  Done if you are okay with the wording.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC) That's all for now (I was up at that crack of dawn working on this, so my turn for a break!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC) PS Linda Finch Doctor is in the lead, but uncited ... all I could find was a lawsuit (primary source), but that would work unless you have something else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC) CH: I added "becoming Linda Finch Doctor" so that the sentence reads "In the mid-1980s, Finch met Laird Doctor at a Reno air show, becoming Linda Finch Doctor." and I copied the citation from the bottom of the paragraph to also have a citation at this sentence.  Done SandyGeorgia, I am so fried. I am not quite sure what is left for me to do, versus what are comments. My brain is too jumbled at the moment to comprehend what I need to do. I will be back, though, with a fresher brain and healthier (flu) in the morning.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC) I was able to recharge my battery and I believe that I have tackled each item you presented in this section. Along the way I heard that you were up into the night... and then got up early today... to provide this thorough and help list of issues to look at. Thank you very much for doing that. I am willing to take some work in trade if you like. I hope you got a good night sleep tonight!–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC) A new day, and almost done! I have to run one errand this morning, and can dig in after that to review all you did and the responses here (in about an hour or so). After that, I am thinking we can wrap this up by today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, sounds wonderful! While you are gone, I will be working on #Fourth pass by referencing Talk:Linda Finch/temp and what is left to do.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Fourth pass

I copied the list of sources to Talk:Linda Finch/temp to work out which sources still need to be checked, and I will address those there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As an FYI, I am going to continue the review through the rest of the sources, and I may ask for a revdel to have my edits hidden for the cleanest visible article possible.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ready to move

I have focused on making sure the draft at Draft:Linda Finch was copyright-clean; after finding a few initial but relatively minor problems (Talk:Linda Finch#Suggestions and Talk:Linda Finch#Queries), I checked every source that was used extensively, and most sources overall, noting a few issues along the way that don't relate to copyright.

All of my copyright and paraphrasing concerns have been resolved, and the draft can be moved to mainspace without copyright concerns.

I don't pretend the draft is GAN-ready, as it still has prose, flow and sourcing issues, but those can be worked on at a more leisurely pace once the content is in mainspace. A very lot of progress was made by CaroleHenson here in a very short time, and work can proceed outside of the pressure cooker with the content moved to mainspace.

CaroleHenson, if you could do the following, we can probably get this into mainspace in short order.

1. Since you are the only author of Draft:Linda Finch, we don't have WP:CWW attribution concerns, but it would be optimal for it to go away because the first versions had minor instances of copy-paste or close paraphrasing (identified above).
2. Copy all of the contents from Draft:Linda Finch to Talk:Linda Finch/Temp (you can attribute per WP:CWW should you wish, but not necessary as you are the sole author).
3. Put a {{db-author}} at Draft:Linda Finch, which you can do as the only author, and that removes any concern I had about earlier copyright issues, now resolved.
4. Then I can endorse at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 March 28 that the rewrite is ready, and as Sennecaster indicates above, copyvio admins usually get on those sooner than the seven-day wait.

Once the content is in mainspace, then remaining issues of reliability of sources, prose, etc. can be worked on by all. Thanks for all the hard work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Wonderful! Thanks so much for guiding me through this process. Steps 1-3 are done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As an FYI, I updated the introduction to the article based upon the changes discussed here. I will fix the categories once Talk:Linda Finch/Temp is moved to article space.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, looks like my work here is done. Over time, if the Gathering of Eagles citations could be replaced, that would be good. It doesn't seem to provide anything making it reliable, so it's good for stating she was honored by them, but probably shouldn't be used in a BLP for anything more than that, although it's possible that more feedback might be had from the Aviation WikiProject as to its reliability. Unwatching now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Just saw this now. No need to respond to my ping from my work page for LF.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Revdel

@Diannaa and SandyGeorgia:, Dianaa, I have been working with the WP:CWW team to recreate the Linda Finch article because there were a lot of copyright violation issues. My version, though, was less than stellar. It had some places where content needed to be reworded or was removed - and there were some misunderstandings - so there has been a lot of time spent by Sandy and me to get the article ready.

After the draft was moved to article space, I found four instances where I thought rewording was necessary. Would it be wise to revdel my edits from this starting and ending version ID, which reflects where the four rewording scenarios occurred?

The four are #12, 17, 24, 29 on User:CaroleHenson/LF audit - I added a line under each of the rewordings made after the clean version of the draft was moved to article space - it's RevDel? to make it easy to find on the page. (In other words, there are reword scenarios before then, but they are not in the snapshot of the last version of the draft.)

Do you think that this is worth the effort to hide these versions?

Sandy, please feel free to weigh-in on this if you'd like.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Added "or was removed" above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

(I am not sure what you mean by the WP:CWW team; maybe the people working on the CCI?) A few instances of too-close paraphrasing don't typically require REVDEL, but Diannaa (who is trying to back off from copyvio work for health reasons) knows better than I do. Sporadic instances of too-close paraphrasing can be corrected through normal editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Yes, re: the team.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with the revision deletion, as the span includes a limited number of diffs over a short timespan and a limited number of editors. Thank you for undertaking the rewrite. — Diannaa (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa Thank you, I appreciate it. I hope that you get feeling better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern Carole! Luckily I am doing better health-wise lately so I have not had to walk away completely from copyright cleanup. Oh wait it's freaking snowing again, there goes my mood — Diannaa (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa, I am glad to hear you are feeling better! I hope that means you are able to have enjoyable non-copyright issues times, too. The weather has been wild lately. Where I live the temperature has been nice, but the winds have been really bad.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Linda Finch article rewrite comments

Rewrite of the article (August 27-August 30, 2023)

I had Draft talk:Linda Finch restored to copy the contents of that page here. It has the items that were not in cited sources for the then Linda Finch article. There are still a couple of things to find sources for.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This article has been rewritten from scratch to resolve copyright issues.

Here are some cases where I could not find sources, so the info is not included in the article.

• her father, Leslie Duerler, worked for Southwestern Bell and AT&T. (source says worked for a phone company)  Not done - 3rd attempt, still not finding this
• her brothers were Michael and Jerry (cited article doesn't mention brothers at all - found mention of her having two brothers from another source, but not their names)  Not done - 3rd attempt, still not finding this
• Finch founded the Care Centers Management Corporation to build retirement communities - (not in cited source)  Not done It's a nursing home management company  Done
• She believed that the flight should be in the same type of plane as Earhart's for historical purposes. (not found in cited source)
• Finch searched for three years for parts for one of only two such planes in existence, neither of which was flight-worthy. (not found in cited source)
• She found it in a garage at a small airstrip near Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin (not found in cited source)  Done
• Finch spent $330,000 (most of her savings) to purchase it and haul it back to her Texas hometown (wasn't clear in the source)  Done
• fuel-tank capacity was increased from 800 pounds to 1,800 pounds (not found in cited source)  Not done I found that her max was 1,250 gallons  Done
• and generally flew eight to 12 hours at a time (not found in cited source)  Done found something a bit different

If anyone can find sources for this, that would be great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Check off info that I found.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Finished all that I could find. If anyone could find some of the others, that would be great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Side comment, I didn't add anything about "(most of her savings)" because the financial sources are a little bit confused. On one hand, she took a loan out from one of her nursing homes to fund the effort - so does "most of her savings" include the equity she had in the nursing home? From what is written, though, it seems that Finch spent $330,000 for the plane and possibly moving expenses. Secondly, it's not really clear to me what the division of sponsorship is between Pratt & Whitney and Hartford Courier. The way it looks to me is that P&W donated $4.5 million... no idea how much was paid by HC... and whether Finch contributed toward the cost of the flight and education. –CaroleHenson (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A minor point or 2.. This aircraft held 1250 USG of fuel. 1USG weighs 6.01lb so fuel weight near 7000lb not 17000 as noted.

Also cruise speed of Lockheed 10E is 185mph.It may be that for this flight that they cruised at a lower speed because of greater mass but I reckon the 90mph noted in the article was round world distance divided by duration of flight. We we take flight from A to B our average speed is not the cruise speed of the aircraft. I think newspaper image in article is possibly textually incorrect.. Not an ideal source 101.53.216.245 (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Return these?

• PBS comments about Finch's flight, "Though others have recreated Earhart's flight, Finch is the first to use the same make and model plane as Earhart and to make the attempt with only a pilot and navigator." - was removed March 27 due to concern about high percentage on Earwig.

Need better sources:

• More info about the longest let Finch took back to Oakland that came from Mental Floss - for the info about her longer legs were (about 1,000 miles (1,600 km) a day), that took 8-10
• See if another source can be found for info from Pilot's Post

–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)