Do not copy passages from sources; do not copy passages and "scuff them up" superficially by substituting synonyms, changing tense, and the like, as such scuffing-up does not prevent accusations of plagiarism. Develop a synthesis-writing technique that does not involve copying passages and then modifying them; although the information in a synthesis article comes from the sources, the form of presentation should be entirely original. There is some advice on this at WN:PILLARS#own, and discussion at WN:Plagiary. A rule of thumb says if there are four consecutive words verbatim from source that's a sign of too much similarity; I noted one entire sentence of about a dozen words that was slightly scuffed from source. In this case I decided I could probably fix the problems sufficiently without exceeding my reviewer's purview, but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing this much on a regular basis (and it's also a significant increase in review labor). Note that the measures I was able to take, as a reviewer, are not as extensive as would be ideal, because as a reviewer I have to minimize my involvement with the article; so don't take what I did as "good enough".
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Do not copy passages from sources; do not copy passages and "scuff them up" superficially by substituting synonyms, changing tense, and the like, as such scuffing-up does not prevent accusations of plagiarism. Develop a synthesis-writing technique that does not involve copying passages and then modifying them; although the information in a synthesis article comes from the sources, the form of presentation should be entirely original. There is some advice on this at WN:PILLARS#own, and discussion at WN:Plagiary. A rule of thumb says if there are four consecutive words verbatim from source that's a sign of too much similarity; I noted one entire sentence of about a dozen words that was slightly scuffed from source. In this case I decided I could probably fix the problems sufficiently without exceeding my reviewer's purview, but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing this much on a regular basis (and it's also a significant increase in review labor). Note that the measures I was able to take, as a reviewer, are not as extensive as would be ideal, because as a reviewer I have to minimize my involvement with the article; so don't take what I did as "good enough".
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Acagastya: We really should have been hashing this out on the collaboration page rather than edit summaries, I suppose. The difficulty I see is that, although we're clear that when naming the song we should use italics, here we aren't naming the song; we're talking about the name of the song. The name of the song is "Helter Skelter". A further awkwardness is that, iirc, one of the sources noted the name was misspelled, so what was written was (I think) "Healter Skelter"; although if one were being hyper-precise, I think they at least sometimes wrote "pigs" rather than "pig". So it's not really correct to say that Helter Skelter is the name of a song, but it's also not perfectly precise to say that "Helter Skelter" was written at the scene(s), unless of course it was sometimes written correctly and sometimes incorrectly. --Pi zero (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply