On Nov 10, 2006, at 3:58 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is an overreaction. While there may be some basis for suspecting that the image may be a copyvio, saying that about the text of the article is a bit of a stretch. There is not much information in the article to start with. It is a stub, but that is more an argument for the proposed merge than outright deletion. How can you say that something is "likely a copyvio"? Either it's prima facie a copyvio or it's not.
First of all, let me note that the current version is not the version that had the copyvio problems.
Second of all, and I can promise you that this is an experience that anybody who has ever taught a writing course can verify, when it comes to identifying plagiarism, you know first, and then you go back and find proof. There are various things about plagiarized writing that just stick out. In the case of the Jeli Mateo article, in its old version, here are the two that I look at and go "Ah, plagiarism"
"A towering beauty at 5’8, Jeli never fails to make heads turn."
Clearly a POV paragraph, but more to the point, it seems out of context. The writer of that sentence has some sort of perspective that is not the same as Wikipedia's. The sentence assumes some sort of proximity to Mateo such that the observation of heads turning is possible.
"What does she want to prove in Idol? That she’s beauty, brains and talent all in one package."
The present tense here throws. Yes, the sentence was added the day before her elimination, but even still, the tone of the sentence sounds like it's intended for an ephemeral context. The "beauty, brains and talent all in one package" line is also clearly a promotional slogan.
These are more than enough to label it "probable" copyvio, and frankly, even if the paragraph weren't a POV puff piece, I'd remove the paragraph on probable cause even if I couldn't Google the phrases.
-Phil