Talk:Le Laudi/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jburlinson (talk · contribs) 09:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to review this article for GA status. I'm sorry you've had to wait so long. Thanks to all who have contributed to this article. After an initial review, I have a concern that there may be copyright violations. Specifically, a considerable amount of the material in the "history", "Structure and music", "Evaluation", and "Performances and recordings" sections is nearly word-for-word from "The Bible in Music" (pages 278-80), published in 2017 by Robert Ignatius Letellier. Based on this, I'm inclined to quick-fail the nomination, but have some reservations because it appears from the article's history that much of suspect wording existed in the article as far back as 2012, well before Letellier's book was published, making me wonder how to determine who might be cribbing from whom. I would be glad to discuss with any editors who would be willing to take a close look and consider revisions. All the best. --Jburlinson (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking! Interesting, - we had a similar situation for Jessye Norman, which finally passed yesterday. I didn't copy from anywhere. In Norman's article, it was older parts of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The German first version was this, 2010 which looks quite similar to the first entry here, 2012, as a translation by Dr. Blofeld. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda -- Thanks for your message. It appears that the bare bones of the article were apparent in the German version. The first attempt at translation into English needed some help, so you were good enough to upgrade the quality of the translated material considerably. The German version had no inline citations, so you and others added some, one of which is an article by Detlef Giese, now no longer available online. Much of this work was done in 2012. In 2017, Prof. Letellier published his book and included much of the same content that appeared as of that time in the Wikipedia article. In other words, it appears to me that Letellier plagiarized the Wikipedia article. It's hard for me to assert that to a certainty, because Letellier's book does include a reference to Giese's article, which might have been the source for his content. However, the wording is much too close to the Wikipedia article for Professor Letellier to have come up with his version independently, even if it is based on Giese. If I'm correct, there are no copyright violations on the part of any wikipedia editors. On the contrary, the shoe is on the other foot, with Prof. Letellier having cribbed from WP. Does this seem reasonable to you?

If so, I'll continue with the GA review and make a note about this situation in the body of the review. Will that work?--Jburlinson (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It could also be that both rely on the original souce. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is possible. I'm doubtful of it, though, since the wording is just too close. I think Prof. Letellier copied WP. I plan to add a "Backwards copy" template on the article's talk page. I don't think this should negatively impact it's GA status. Thanks. --Jburlinson (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very minor changes made by reviewer.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There is evidence that material from the WP article has been copied in an external publication. A "backwards copy" template has been added to the talk page.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No history of recent edit wars or unanswered talk items.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Very good job. Congratulations to the nominator and all editors who contributed to this article.