Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gowanus Canal/1

Gowanus Canal[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist It is not really the purpose of this process to reassess old good articles that the nominator still thinks meet the criteria. The criteria have not changed that much since 2008 and we barely have the volunteer power to assess current ones. Still it is here and has been commented on by editors so we may as well follow though with the reassessment. Unfortunately this must be delisted at this point. There are currently 5 citation needed tags and all are to statements that fall under the 2b criteria. These have been present since the review started and have not been address (the article itself has had only one edit in the last month). AIRcorn (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the article about Gowanus Canal for Good Article criteria again. The last time it was reviewed was in 2008, wherein it passed the criteria. The article has changed significantly since then. Thus, it should be updated to the 2017 Good Article standards, which is why I am requesting a community assessment. Just to clarify, I want this page's Good Article status to be kept. epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has a copyvio with this site, whole paragraph copied: http://www.gowanuscanal.org/history.html Kees08 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also with this site: nytimes.com/2013/09/27/nyregion/as-cleanup-plan-is-set-for-gowanus-canal-violations-continue.html

~~I am placing the Good Article tools template here so I can more easily see what the possible issues with this article might be.~~ Shearonink (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't work - I'll have to create the tools another way. Shearonink (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I ran the Checklinks tool on the refs. Some of the refs are no longer valid or aren't completely correct: please see Checklinks. I also ran the copyvio tool. I agree with Kees08, there is a copyright violation with a 2013 New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/nyregion/as-cleanup-plan-is-set-for-gowanus-canal-violations-continue.html where almost all of a single paragraph is reproduced within the WP article. I did a simple search of the paragraph that appears in the New York Times article:

They are mostly companies and a few government entities like the City of New York and the United States Navy, for ship work that polluted the canal. Many of the original businesses that once operated side by side along the canal have since merged, changed names or moved away, including Brooklyn Union Gas, which eventually rolled into National Grid; Continental Oil; and Standard Oil. When companies have been sold or merged, the successor company as well as the current property owner assume the liability. Companies that produced or transported the hazardous substances are also considered responsible.

The paragraph did not appear in the Wikipedia Gowanus Canal article until after the New York Times published its piece in 2013. (and, yes I did go back and manually check by date)

...like the City of New York and the United States Navy, for ship work that polluted the canal. Many of the original businesses that once operated alongside the canal have since merged, changed names or moved away, including Brooklyn Union Gas, which eventually became a part of National Grid, Continental Oil and Standard Oil. When companies have been sold or merged, the successor company as well as the current property owner assume the liability. Companies that produced or transported the hazardous substances are also considered responsible.

Since the source is clearly-given as the New York Times it would appear to me that the writer-editor neglected to put the New York Times story into their own words rather than running afoul of any copyright issues - I mean, they didn't try to conceal the text appearing in both articles. As Kees08 states above, there is also another issue with the gowanuscanal history website, but in my experience with these types of cases it is usually a case of the other site copying from WP without attribution. Someone who has more technical expertise than myself will have to see which came first, the WP article or the Gowanus Canal History site. In the case of the NY Times article, the apparently plagiarized text has got to go - adjusted, deleted or whatever. It cannot stay in this article - if it does, the article fails #2D of the WP:GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I admit I am unfamiliar with the usage of the External media template, which places external links within the main article text. It does trouble me that the Lavender Lake link is to the full Alison Prete documentary (can we do that in WP? - link to a full movie?) and the 2 TEDxGowanus links are also to 2 full TED talks, while the other is to a proposed usage of the Canal. I am uncertain as to what exactly these links provide that is not already in the article. I am also concerned that directly linking to the 2 TEDx talks on YouTube - where outside ads appear - creates a somewhat iffy link to outside commercial interests, when the Links appear within the main article text. The Alison Prete documentary is hosted on Vimeo and contains no ads. I am not sure but I do not think it would be as much of an issue if the links were presented within the External links section at the end of the article. Shearonink (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shearonink: Thank you for the feedback. I will need to fix the links and the copyvio tomorrow. Maybe that "copyvio" could be a failed paraphrase... but in any case, I need to reword. I'll also work on the external ted talks. epicgenius (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  My thanks also to Kees08. epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Thanks for the question on the External Media template. This is one of those things that goes way, way back on Wikipedia, and IMHO is grossly underused. If Wikipedia is to use video, which is a pervasive modern form of communication, often the only alternative is to use this template. Some basics:

WP:External links specifically mentions the external media template (see footnote 2) and exempts it from the usual restriction that ex links have to be in the ex links section. The template itself says that it should be used in the body of the text, where the media would be used if there were not copyright restrictions keeping it off of Commons.
WP:EL also gives as What can normally be linked

"3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" and length or other reasons.

WP:Video links (an explanatory supplement) also address this and the file size as well

"Because the Commons and Metawiki have a 100MB limit on files some files are added to YouTube for use in Wikipedia that are gathered from United States government sources such as the National Archives by WikiProject FedFlix or other projects. These files can be used on Wikipedia articles if available. ... {{External media}} can be used within the body of an article when media is necessary but not available through free or fair-use rules."

The key restrictions that are on the use of this template are that

We're not linking to a video that is violating copyright laws
It's not an advert, promotional. It should be reasonably neutral.

I think these videos all qualify.

Last, we have to say "What does this add to the article?"

IMHO - a huge amount. Most of us don't see sites like this and a simple photo is sorely lacking when we can see the site from multiple angles, at different times of the day, with different affected people explaining their views. If a picture is worth a thousand words, any one of these videos is worth a million.

BTW TEDx talks are a pretty common use of this templet. Imagine seeing a simple photo, then add on a 1 minute voice recording. That tells you a lot about the person. Now compare that to a video showing them walk, talk, and maybe even chew gum for 15 minutes, propounding on a topic that they are passionate about, and which they a considered an expert on. No contest is there?

Hope this helps.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]