Talk:Quantum nonlocality/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Doctorg (talk · contribs) 22:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Porphyro:I am now starting this review. Thank you for the time you have put into this article and your work towards expanding Wikipedia’s quality content. I will add my comments into each of the following sections. Doctor^G (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
This is a well written article that discusses the topic with grammatical and technical accuracy throughout. The lead section needs to more clearly summarize the article content and, topics introduced in the lead, should be discussed in the article (faster than light communication and special relativity are two examples). Doctor^G (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Every formula needs to be cited. Doctor^G (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article includes thoughts from multiple well known scientists which provides for the neutrality on the subject. Doctor^G (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article is stable, no edit wars detected. Doctor^G (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Math formulas are used throughout to illustrate the written content. Doctor^G (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Immediate failure for copyright infringement and plagiarism. Much of the content is copied/pasted from other locations on the internet. Doctor^G (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work reviewing this article; I'll keep your comments in mind for future revision. I'm surprised by the final conclusion, though, as I'm not aware that any of the material is copied or pasted from elsewhere. Could you point out the relevant sections for me?

Porphyro (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy a fe different sentences into Google and you will see verbatim content throughout the internet. I did this with a handful of sentences and had the same result each time.

could you be more specific? The only examples I (and the GA plagiarism detector) can find are sites that source this exact article and quote it wholesale. Porphyro (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the opening sentence of the lead section returns 700 + results in a Google search. While it is certainly possible that some sites have linked to this article, or copied from it, it seems unlikely that it is in the hundreds. As I dug deeper, another line from the lead section also seems to have been published in a Journal of Physics conference proceedings in 2012. I am not saying you plagiarized, but the same content is in a lot of different places. Published articles are typically peer reviewed and it would probably be caught if it was copied from Wikipedia. I hope this all makes sense. Doctor^G (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously something that happens on occasion that some plagiarised material is added at some point by an editor and remains mostly unchanged throughout the editing process, and it is possible that part of the first sentence falls into this category. However I can't find any source on google that it could have said to be copied from. If you could tell me which sentence specifically you found in the JoP proceedings I will definitely take a look at it. the thing that surprised me, though, is that you believe that a lot of the article consists of plagiarised material; I strongly believe this is not the case. The reason for my concern is that the rest of your review gives me particular points that I can act on to improve the article but I can't remove plagiarism that isn't really present. Porphyro (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, someone may copy/paste content into an article from time to time. You asked for a specific reference so I used the opening sentence as my example. I can't give you a line by line breakout of everything that may be plagiarized, that is better handled by those (including yourself) who are actively working to improve the article. Do what I did, search for the first sentence on Google and you will find what I did. Your profile says you are a PhD student, you should have access to the publication I found. I suggest you do the research, rewrite anything that is plagiarized, and resubmit it for GA status. It's a great article, but there is a lot of content there from other sources and that makes it highly suspect. BTW, I have a doctorate and I teach grad students, I can usually spot plagiarism from a mile away. I'm not saying you did it, but it is definitely in there. Doctor^G (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for a line by line breakdown of plagiarised material, but if you found a specific example I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask you to specify what it is; please therefore specify the sentence that you have found elsewhere and I can investigate when that was added and check other material that was added at the time. The duplicate detector finds no plagiarised material on google and so i am sure you can see that it is frustrating for me that you suggest there is a large amount of plagiarised material but have not given an example. The first line of the article was recently debated and rewritten by myself, User:Tsirelson and others as you can see on the talk page and is demonstrably not copied verbatim from elsewhere. As you suggest, it is excessively onerous to google every single sentence of an article to look for similar sentences and I don't see why you expect me to do this to stave off accusations of plagiarism. I will in any case revise parts of the article to respond to your other (reasonable) criticisms. Porphyro (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already did that, but in case it was unclear, the very first paragraph in the lead section is on many pages throughout the Internet as well as in a published conference article from 2012. Doctor^G (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the clarification! Unfortunately I really cannot find the article you're referring to- I'm sorry if this is unhelpful. If you could give me the name it would be much appreciated. In any case it seems that the best course of action here will be the following, and I hope you'll agree. Firstly, to make the referencing changes you suggested and generally clean up the article following your points. Secondly, to reach out to editors experienced in dealing with plagiarised content on Wikipedia to get an expert pair of eyes on the content who will hopefully be able to give constructive advice. I ought to be able to do this in a couple of weeks time. Porphyro (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Well, I had written a few paragraphs and they somehow disappeared on me when I pressed "Publish changes", so here we go a second time. The dispute is old but I don't see why a third opinion wouldn't be appropriate here.

I don't see any copyright issues in the lead paragraphs here. Any text I was able to find online (either from Earwig's copyvio detector or spot-checking via Google) was copied from or mirrors Wikipedia's text, not the other way around. It might be helpful to have the reference information for the Journal of Physics article mentioned above, just to identify it and then check. But I'm not seeing any text lifted or plagiarized from copyrighted sources in the lead. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 17:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]