- The following is an archived discussion of Bradbourne Priory's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: rejected by —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 20:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC).
- ... that in 1629, the residents of the village Bradbourne successfully sued the residents of the village Atlow in order to acquire funds to repair their parish church (pictured)?
5x expanded by Rushton2010 (talk). Self nominated at 13:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC).
- Expanded within last 3 days, well written, great length, and an interesting hook. Much of the article is cited to a text reproduced in part on a website, their transcription taken in good faith. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Issues with paraphrasing and attribution. Part of the article is taken verbatim from this PD source; there is no attribution indicating verbatim copying. Other parts of the article are closely paraphrased from this source, a reproduction of an earlier PD source; again, no attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- No activity on this item since April 9. Please work with the criticism of the above reviewers, otherwise this nomination will have to be delisted.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 17:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I followed the paraphrasing policy: "summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy." -which is exactly what I did.
Both sources you state are exactly the same book (so why you stated it twice is anyone's guess) and that book is the primary source I used in the article, and it is properly and thoroughly referenced inline with the policies.(referenced 25 times actually, in quite a small article). Also, this source is in the public domain due to its age, so even if it was paraphrased, as with Wikipedia's policy, it is allowed tobe paraphrased anyway.
So given that the article is inline with the policy and properly referenced, what is the issue?Rushton2010 (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here's what the problem is: it isn't paraphrased, as there are portions that are near-verbatim to the source given. Compare for example "Though of considerable antiquity there is no part of this church of sufficient age for us to suppose it to be the same building, which was standing here when the Domesday Survey was taken in 1086" in the article with "Though of considerable antiquity, there is no part of this church of sufficient age for us to suppose it to be the same building which was standing here when the Domesday Survey was taken in 1086" in the source - the only difference between the two is placement of commas. Because it isn't paraphrased, it must follow WP:Plagiarism, particularly Wikipedia:PLAGIARISM#Public-domain_sources, which requires attribution over and beyond normal citation practice. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sentence deleted. As I said; I don't copy and paste anything - I research and read and then type things in my own words. Any similarities or accidents most probably done through working in the early hours of the morning.Rushton2010 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Seeing as so long as it is attributed, direct copy and paste from these sources is allowed and is not copy right violation or plagarism (nothing in the article has been copied and pasted or intentionally plagiarised by the way. So much for Wikipedia's fundamental principle of assuming good faith),-would it not be simpler for one of you who are more experienced in these matters to simply add the required attribution instead of typing constant message here? I have no idea which of the 193 templates to use and Wikipedia is as useless as ever with instructions. So any one willing to help? Rushton2010 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Attributions addedRushton2010 (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC) (I think)
Nobody said you were intentionally plagiarizing. Legally speaking however, plagiarism doesn't need to be be intentional to be considered as such. And thus, we try to wash Wikipedia entirely clean from that sort of thing. It's nothing personal: it's just us trying to comform to the law. Anyway, let's see what the reviewer thinks of the article now.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 21:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please rereview! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 10:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I notice a new text on the bottom of the page: "Some of these attributions may be unnecessary as any plagerism is coincidental and unintentional." not only are there spelling issues with this warning, these kinds of disclaimers do not hold up on Wikipedia. Whether close paraphrasing is coincidental or not, is irrelevant. Articles will need to be entirely free from this, or this will not get past DYK if any instances are left behind. Please update this "Source Attributions" section at the bottom by removing this sentence. Also make a proper list out of the PD sources, as it's barely readable and remove the links to specific webshops where the content can be purchased.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 15:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've put in bullet points and removed what you think is unnecessary. Can I just remind people about Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I do not own the article and you don't require mine or anyone else's permission to edit it- it's the whole of wikipedia... Seems rather silly to cause backlocks over minor issues which take less than 10 seconds to edit and fix.
- Rushton2010 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I do realize you do not own this article. I'm well aware of that. I'm purposely staying out of the active editing, because it may compromise my credibility as a reviewer. Be that as it may, I'm closing this nomination. Close paraphrasing is not - and will never be - a minor issue. We treat this very seriously. You have been giving multiple chances to remove instances of close paraphrasing, and instances still remain. Compare "provided a maintenance for three canons" to "provided finance for 3 canons." And "granted to the support of the three brethren who served the church and chapels" which is identical to what appears in the Wikipedia article. Furthermore, you list an extraordinary number of public domain sources, with none (!) of them showing evidence they are indeed within the public domain. They all appear protected by copyright to me. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 20:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)