Template talk:Did you know nominations/Held v. Montana
Possible COPYVIO issue[edit]
@RCraig09, Oltrepier, and Czar: Hi, could one of you paraphrase some of the phrases that might have been copied from the following source?
- Gelles, David (2023-03-24). "In Held v. Montana, Young People Sue Montana Over Use of Fossil Fuels". The New York Times. Retrieved 2023-06-21.
See https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1161125591&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F03%2F24%2Fclimate%2Fmontana-youth-climate-lawsuit.html for more detail. Some of the phrases:
the state from considering climate change when deciding whether to issue new permits for fossil fuel projects
Our Children’s Trust petitioned the Montana Supreme Court to rule that the state has a duty to address climate change. The court declined to weigh in
(split over three lines on the NYT side)be blocked just as depositions were to begin; the Supreme Court denied those requests
changed tobe blocked just as depositions were to begin. The Supreme Court denied those requests
(change of "." to a ";")that the state Supreme Court take supervisory control away from the
to reduce the influence of the copper and coal industries
the fifth largest coal producing state and the 12th largest oil producing state
changed tothe fifth largest coal producing state and the twelfth largest oil producing state
It may not be necessary to change every phrase, but at a minimum, please paraphrase the lengthier ones. I personally would like to see the Similarity percentage between the Wikipedia article & the NYT article in the green highlight on the Earwig's Copyvio Detector analysis of the article.
Peaceray (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I will try to do as you suggest (thanks for being specific). Keep in mind that in legal issues, terminology must be exact, and much in the source articles is probably taken from court documents or statements from judge or attorneys, or is a bare-bones statement of fact that can't reasonably be re-worded without amateurishly hacking up the precise meaning. I'll make changes later today (Wednesday). —RCraig09 (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Peaceray Hello, you were right to point this out, thank you: at its current state, the page reaches roughly 46% of similarity to the NYT article. To be honest, @RCraig09 has much more experience than me with specifically law-centered subjects, whereas I focused on more generic information and other edits. Anyway, we'll definitely do our best to solve the issue. Oltrepier (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've finished my related revisions (though open to further specific suggestions), and the Earwig factor has been reduced from 45.9 to 37.9: "Violation Unlikely". Keep in mind that, more than most articles, Held v. Montana contains many direct quotes and legal terms-of-art phrases, as well as some objective facts (some in list form) that can't readily be expressed differently without compromising the accuracy of the source. Thanks to all for time on this project. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've finished my related revisions (though open to further specific suggestions), and the Earwig factor has been reduced from 45.9 to 37.9: "Violation Unlikely". Keep in mind that, more than most articles, Held v. Montana contains many direct quotes and legal terms-of-art phrases, as well as some objective facts (some in list form) that can't readily be expressed differently without compromising the accuracy of the source. Thanks to all for time on this project. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I am just getting back to this after being busy. It now looks good on Earwig's Copyvio Detector! Thank you for attending to this! Peaceray (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)