Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article tomorrow probably. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (I'll start listing prose issues here)

I copy edit as I go along, but feel free to change anything I do.

lede

all four paragraphs start with Owsley's name - need more variety in wording. Done
too many sentences start with "He" - makes for plodding prose Done

Early life

same problems as in the lead Done
was his mother a professional artist?

(No claims, he just said his mother was an accomplished artist that painted and worked with stained glass)

"The family lived rather conservatively, with neither parent developing a habit of smoking or drinking. They also never seemed to run out of money before the third week of the month." - would this do: "The family lived frugally and never seemed to run out of money before the third week of the month. Neither parent drank or smoke."?

(the suggested change comes across too clumsy. And some take offense to the term frugal.) How about "The family lived financially conservative, yet never seemed to run out of money by the third week of the month, due to his mother's talent at stretching a meal. Her son's favorite dish was a casserole using a mixture of onions, celery, rice, and mushroom soup over ground beef." (the source wouldn't change.)

Done

"Although his father served as game warden, he was rarely found hunting and disliked the thought of making trophies out of heads and carcasses of animals." - I don't think (I may be wrong) that a game warden necessarily engages in hunting or making trophies out of heads and carcasses... I think they enjoy nature, but as to the rest .... Do you have information about this aspect?

(I'm in the northwest and know wardens in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming that hunt and work with taxidermists, that said, I added a source)

Done

Response

I think you're making great editing choices. Just keep going and when I sense you're taking a break, I'll try to jump in with any outstanding questions or edits you suggest. Thanks again. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CONCERN

From the source:[1]

The thrill of seeing ancient Aztec remains emerging from the ground convinced Owsley that he'd chosen the wrong field; he switched majors and placed himself under Gill's tutelage. "Doug was naive and wide-eyed," Gill recalls. "He didn't even know where Kansas was, and it was two states over. But he was tremendously intelligent and inquisitive."

This article:

The thrill of seeing ancient Aztec remains emerging from the ground convinced Owsley that he'd chosen the wrong field. He decided to switch majors and began studying anthropology, mentored by Gill. "Doug was naive and wide-eyed," Gill recalls. "He didn't even know where Kansas was, and it was two states over. But he was tremendously intelligent and inquisitive."

I'm hesitant to edit further, as I may have and may be editing material that is violating copyrights. See: Wikipedia:Copy-paste. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No copyrights. All these issues have been resolved. Thanks for your work! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 07:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "No copyrights" mean? The Smithsonian TOU only allow non-commercial reuse, so for our purposes this is non-free work. And even if it were free work, copying the text verbatim would still require attribution, perhaps with the {{citation-attribution}} wrapper. I understand the text has been rewritten, but you should understand this going forward. Franamax (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the sentence pointed out was addressed in editing. The issue was resolved. The quote was already attributed in accordance with policy. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MORE CONCERN - from the lede only - haven't checked the rest of the article

From the source:[2]

Dr. Owsley is one of the foremost forensic anthropologists in the world.

This article:

He is considered one of the foremost archaeologists and forensic anthropologists in the world.

From the same source:

Dr. Owsley's work was chronicled in "No Bone Unturned: Inside the World of a Top Forensic Scientist and His Work on America's Most Notorious Crimes and Disasters" by Jeff Benedict (HarperCollins, 2003). In November 2005, the editors of Smithsonian Magazine included Owsley in their list of "35 Who Made a Difference" along with the likes of Bill Gates, Maya Angelou, Yo-Yo Ma, and Steven Spielberg.

This article:

In 2003, author Jeff Benedict wrote No Bone Unturned: Inside the World of a Top Forensic Scientist and His Work on America's Most Notorious Crimes and Disasters, which shared indepth background and details of Owsley's life and career. ... In November 2005, Owsley was honored by Smithsonian Magazine in their list of "35 Who Made a Difference". Other recipients included Bill Gates, Maya Angelou, David Attenborough, and Steven Spielberg.

From the same source:

In addition, Owsley received the Department of the Army Commander’s Award for Civilian Service for forensic investigations that helped identify victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

This article:

In recognition of his work identifying the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon, he was honored with the Department of the Army Commander's Award for Civilian Service.

From the source:[3]

Cases have included Jeffrey Dahmer’s first victim, recovery and identification of Waco Branch Davidian members, and war dead from Yugoslavia. His work has been the subject of a book, a Discovery Channel documentary, and an ABC “20/20” program.

This article:

Notable cases include identifying Jeffrey Dahmer's first victim, the recovery and identification of 82 victims of the siege at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas,
He has been the subject of a book, a Discovery Channel documentary, and an ABC 20/20 segment.

This is just from the lede, and I didn't check all the citations in the lede.
I will consult with another editor, but I believe this amount of close paraphrasing/copyvio is unacceptable.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually times when close paraphrasing is permissible. For example, when there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing. The examples you have provided above are mere facts, not only with limited ways to characterize, but rephrasing in many instances would be a distortion of facts. From WP:PARAPHRASE: In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, the United States Supreme Court noted that factual compilations of information may be protected with respect to "selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity," as "[t]he compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers"; the Court also indicated that "originality is not a stringent standard; it does not require that facts be presented in an innovative or surprising way" and that "[t]he vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be." ("Decision". Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).) Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The problem is that the article's lede replicates almost all of the second and third paragraphs of article, which is most of the article proceeding the interview.
And the lede replicates most of paragraph three of this article which only has four paragraphs.
This is not the same as "paraphrasing" facts. The article uses the same wording and basically the same sentence structure. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches and WP:Close paraphrasing. A second opinion is needed if you do not agree that this is not acceptable. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are stated facts. Copyright laws protect creative expression of ideas, rather than presentation of facts. While I appreciate your work, I welcome another opinion. Thanks. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 14:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

My mentor User:Worm That Turned looked at it and said "it certainly goes into close paraphrasing, possibly further into plagiarism - not sure about copyright violation. Best thing to do is fail it, citing the amount of violations - allow Cindamuse to re-write the article in a less problematic way."

Would you like to ask another opinion? If you don't see the problem, then that is a problem for me. And I've copy edited it, possibly disguising some of the close paraphrasing. So it's a problem. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best we don't use me as the "third opinion", as I'm pretty certain both of you have more experience actually writing articles. I've suggested that Mathew talk to Moonriddengirl, but there will be other options. Having said that, if one of my adoptees had come to me with paraphrasing like that, I would (and indeed have) told them to try again - that's too close for comfort. Cindy, are you really saying that identify victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon is wholly factual and could not be rephrased? Worm^TT · (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worm, yes, it is wholly factual as the stated reason for being honored with the award. I can remove the reason for being honored with the award, but would that be appropriate here? Would it be appropriate to misquote the reason for being honored with the award? There are no copyright violations or plagiarism here. "Citing the amount of violations"... please state the amount of violations specifically so that I may respond to each. Please also see this. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree. I'm not suggesting that you remove the fact, but it is not a quote and there are a number of ways of explaining what he did. I can think of quite a few alternatives, it is a factual statement but not one that needs to match so directly. As the very essay you point out says - "The more extensively we rely on this exception, the more likely we are to run afoul of compilation protection". I'm just saying that I'd expect better from a good article. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback. It is the exact reason that he was honored. That said, let me take a look and see if I can tear it up. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was looking at that - both articles specifically use exactly the same wording, so I could see that point of view. I just wonder if you should either tear it up or use the same exact wording, not the half way house. As I mentioned on my talk page, now headed home, but hopefully will have another look tomorrow. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Worm, I made the edit. Have a good evening. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cindamuse, you asked me to review the close paraphrasing on this page. Although this is very much a borderline case, considering that pieces were copied from various sources and jumbled together, rather than being systematically paraphrased from a single source in order, this is definitely close paraphrasing. You claim that the text describes facts that could not easily have been described in another manner without introducing inaccuracies, but this is simply untrue - for the sake of illustration, here are some rewordings of your copied text:

He is considered one of the foremost archaeologists and forensic anthropologists in the world.

He is one of the world's most well-known and influential archaeologists and forensic anthropologists.

In 2003, author Jeff Benedict wrote No Bone Unturned: Inside the World of a Top Forensic Scientist and His Work on America's Most Notorious Crimes and Disasters, which shared indepth background and details of Owsley's life and career. ... In November 2005, Owsley was honored by Smithsonian Magazine in their list of "35 Who Made a Difference". Other recipients included Bill Gates, Maya Angelou, David Attenborough, and Steven Spielberg.

A biography of Owsley, No Bone Unturned: Inside the World of a Top Forensic Scientist and His Work on America's Most Notorious Crimes and Disasters, was published by Jeff Benedict in 2003. ... Smithsonian Magazine placed Owsley alongside other influential figures in their "35 Who Made a Difference" list in November 2005.

He has been the subject of a book, a Discovery Channel documentary, and an ABC 20/20 segment.

(the book is already mentioned) He was featured in television on the Discovery Channel documentary (name of documentary here with citation) and was interviewed by (find name of interviewer) on ABC's 20/20 on (find date).

The last example shows how incorporating additional sources can help you to avoid close paraphrasing. My contribs are PD so feel free to borrow or modify these as you like. In short, there is no shortage of ways of rephrasing such complex ideas, and you should strive to be really original in your presentation and even exceed the original sources in conciseness and informativeness. Dcoetzee 18:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Derrick. In your first example, Owsley is not well-known, but I removed the word "foremost" and used "prominent and influential". In the sentence, "In 2003, author Jeff Benedict wrote No Bone Unturned: Inside the World of a Top Forensic Scientist and His Work on America's Most Notorious Crimes and Disasters, which shared indepth background and details of Owsley's life and career," the only content reused was the author's name, the name of the book, and the year of publication. The sentence structure was entirely different. I fail to see how that is a close paraphrasing of the original and would appreciate some feedback. That said, I've made some editing changes and revisions after noticing some congruency issues. I appreciate the feedback. Any chance you would be willing to review the entire article? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With feedback from Derrick, I would prefer to keep the article on hold until I can make another run through on the article. It will be a couple of days, since I'm out the door and will be in and out this week. Thanks. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I am failing this article because there was an unacceptable level of close paraphrasing/copvio in the lede, which the nominator denied for several days. Because of nominator denial, several other editors were asked to give opinions, see comments from User:Worm That Turned, User:Dcoetzee, and User:Franamax (above) which support my examples of copyvio/close paraphrasing in the lede.
The arguing over the lede over the course of several days, has exhausted me. The article needs copy editing and close check of the rest of the article for copyvio/close paraphrasing, which needs to be done.
It also needs a copy edit (see below -samples only):

Could use some polishing. e.g. passive voice: "He is considered one of the world's most prominent and influential archaeologists and forensic anthropologists"^[who?]
"he has overseen the forensic examination of over 10,000 skeletons and human remains originating from over an estimated 8,000 to 9,300 years" - clumsy
"The family lived financially conservative, yet never seemed to run out of money by the third week of the month, due to his mother's talent at stretching a meal." - clumsy and unclear wording - seems contradictory.

Unnecessary detail: e.g. "Her son's favorite dish was a casserole using a mixture of onions, celery, rice, and mushroom soup

Pass or Fail:
Best of luck with a new review. MathewTownsend (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]