Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Taj Mahal/1

Taj Mahal edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Consensus that the reassessment rationale was inaccurate. Indeed123 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I found that the majority of this article comes directly from the website http://www.indohistory.com/taj_mahal.html. For instance, there is both a section for the tomb on both the website and the article. These are nearly identical, other than some touch ups to make the article clearer and more accesible, (for instance, defining the word Chamfared). This is well seen by the first two sentences of this section, which are identical other than parenthetical use.

Although I do not know of any wikipedia policies against copy-paste writing, I imagine it probably isn't good. Strictly going by the criteria, I say this article fails certainly for 4, namely neutrality, as the website is not neutral. On the right side, it advertises the article Pakistan: A Failed State. The article could also sort of fail by 2b for citations. Indeed123 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not seeing any neutrality issue - it describes the building in a mostly NPOV way. Do we know if copying was done by us or by them? The layout seems very wiki-like - when was the indohistory article written? If it is a copyvio, all the copied material should be removed, and the gutted article would naturally no longer be GA worthy. But not being copyvio is not directly a GA criterion, this should have been sorted out on the talk page first (or at least the articles writer's asked).

This sentence "The base structure is a large, multi-chambered structure. The base is essentially a cube with chamfered edges and is roughly 55 metre on each side (see floor plan, right)." makes me think they copied us (without attribution) as our article in 2007 had the floorplan image to the right of this text, whereas their article has no such plan (to the right or otherwise).Yob Mod 10:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am one of the major contributors to this article, along with Joopercoopers (talk). Neither of us has made any use of the indohistory.com website. I never heard of it until today, and I sincerely doubt that JoopersCoopers would rely on that source. Please take a look at our Taj Mahal references, and to our other many contributions to assess our commitment to reliable sources. I went through a rather inane GAR of this article some months back, and vowed never to go through another bout. This will be my last comment. If you think that this article copyvios indohistory's, you are living in Upside Down World. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) PS. I will affirm that I and I alone wrote the sentence No evidence exist for claims that describe, often in horrific detail, the deaths, dismemberments and mutilations which Shah Jahan inflicted on various architects and craftsmen associated with the tomb I worked really hard on that sentence, and I am quite proud of it. It appears in the indohistory article, much as it does in the Taj article, the only place I ever personally published it until now.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this GAR would be best quick closed, as originiating in an innocent mistake. This was one of the most sneaky of the wikipedia copying sites i've seen. Does someone want to write the email to Indohistory, demanding they acknowledge wikipedia as their source?YobMod 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about this. I ought to have checked the archives before starting the discussion. There is no neutrality issue in this case; it only came about if the article was templated after a biased source. I'll close the reassessment down, and attach a possible e-mail to the talk page. Again, sorry for the mistake. Indeed123 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]