Talk:William H. Keeler/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Quick fail: as it stands the article contains copyright violations from Keller's official biography, in particular the section on ecumenism, but the article as a whole needs cleaning for close paraphrasing and copy-paste copyright violations. The infringing text was added to the article with this edit on 8 April 2006. Wayback machine only has the official archdiocesan biography going back to 2009, but the text is substantially similar to the one published by the Holy See, which was present in 2005. Additionally, a 2006 book uses the same biographical information. With all of these sources being consistent throughout time, I think we can rule out reverse plagiarism from Wikipedia with a high degree of certainty. The 2004 website of the Archdiocese of Baltimore lists a biography (that was not archived) and also a copyright symbol on the bottom. Based on all of this, we have enough evidence to say copyright infringement took place on this article and is still present. Based on that, I am quick failing this GA nomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni, thank you for alerting me to the copyright issues. As the diffs that you pointed out show, I did not add the offending material myself. However, I did err in not checking the information properly. But now it looks like you've removed said material. You said that some is still present. I'm having trouble understanding how, so please provide more detail. Thank you. (I just re-added the information on ecumenism. I reworded it, similar to how you had done, so that hopefully the copyright violation will be abated.) Display name 99 (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Display name 99, the content you readded had two issues: it constituted a close paraphrase (kept the word and idea order and some of the original wording). It also contained a direct copy-paste beyond just titles. The things that I reworded were titles that also copied some of the creative structure of the source text. Out of an abundance of caution, I reworded them and changed the creative expression including ordering. The current version does not have any additional copyright violations, but the revision history does. Wikipedia promises to the public that everything on our site is available under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL (the message you see above save changes.)This means that when any part of the text is a copyright violation, an administrator must use revision deletion to hide all infringing versions from public view. Since this copyvio was added in 2006, all revisions in the intervening 11 years need to be hidden, as does the revision where you accidentally restored copyrighted material. This qualifies as a quick fail under the GA criteria. I would suggest that you wait until an admin comes by to handle the revision deletion, and then add information in your own words that summarizes the content removed as a copyright violation, and then nominate it as a good article again. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Holy crap. Ok then. Display name 99 (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Display name 99, the content you readded had two issues: it constituted a close paraphrase (kept the word and idea order and some of the original wording). It also contained a direct copy-paste beyond just titles. The things that I reworded were titles that also copied some of the creative structure of the source text. Out of an abundance of caution, I reworded them and changed the creative expression including ordering. The current version does not have any additional copyright violations, but the revision history does. Wikipedia promises to the public that everything on our site is available under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL (the message you see above save changes.)This means that when any part of the text is a copyright violation, an administrator must use revision deletion to hide all infringing versions from public view. Since this copyvio was added in 2006, all revisions in the intervening 11 years need to be hidden, as does the revision where you accidentally restored copyrighted material. This qualifies as a quick fail under the GA criteria. I would suggest that you wait until an admin comes by to handle the revision deletion, and then add information in your own words that summarizes the content removed as a copyright violation, and then nominate it as a good article again. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni, thank you for alerting me to the copyright issues. As the diffs that you pointed out show, I did not add the offending material myself. However, I did err in not checking the information properly. But now it looks like you've removed said material. You said that some is still present. I'm having trouble understanding how, so please provide more detail. Thank you. (I just re-added the information on ecumenism. I reworded it, similar to how you had done, so that hopefully the copyright violation will be abated.) Display name 99 (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)