Talk:George Taylor (photographer)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 14:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thank you for the review!

*Lead:

Done

*Early life and career:

Done

- Or how about, "As a teenager, Taylor created his first daguerreotypes and continued to develop his photographic skills, while working as a carpenter"?
  - Only thing about this, due to Taylor working as a carpenter in the 1850s and 1860s, there was a period in which he was not a teenager and instead an adult working as a carpenter. I'm not sure if it matters too much, but I just wanted to ask about that which is why I didn't make that change and I have "and while working as a carpenter in the 1850s and 1860s" to try and separate them both, if you get what I mean?
- "from the wife of a 22nd (Cheshire) Regiment captain", the cited source doesn't say anything about this. The fact that this was a particular regiment seems unimportant, but maybe you could say, "from the wife of an officer stationed at the garrison" (assuming that can be sourced).
  - In the source, there is a text passage that says "He also received art lessons from Mrs. Cooksley, the wife of a captain in the 22nd Cheshire Regiment, but was largely self-taught as a painter." which is where I got that information from. It is sourced, but I'll wait to hear back on whether you feel it is necessary or not to add that specific detail.

Oh, I see. The website is, um, interestingly formatted. If you search for "Cheshire", you don't find it until you click the little arrow to expand the text.

But now that I see that, I'm concerned about text that's copied almost word-for-word from the source. The source says:

He also received art lessons from Mrs. Cooksley, the wife of a captain in the 22nd Cheshire Regiment, but was largely self-taught as a painter. He expanded his knowledge of the art of photography by reading English periodicals which he borrowed from the officers of the Garrison.

and the article says

Additionally, he received art lessons from the wife of a 22nd (Cheshire) Regiment captain, although he mostly taught himself as a painter.[4] That same year, he began exploring daguerreotype production after building his first camera.[6] To deepen his understanding of photography, Taylor read English periodicals borrowed from the Garrison officers.

I'm also seeing
In 1856 he launched his career as a photographer under the tutelage of portrait photographer David Lawrence of Fredericton.
vs
In 1856, Taylor began his photography career under the guidance of portrait photographer David Lawrence in Fredericton.

and

Taylor's career spanned formats from daguerreotypes to wet plates to dry plates.

vs

his career spanned various formats, rangingfrom daguerreotypes to wet plates to dry plates

and

About 1906 he made his last major field trip to the head of the Tobique River, and subsequently turned his attention to an earlier interest -- painting. . He died in Fredericton on 5 April 1913

vs

In 1906, at the age of 68,[7] Taylor embarked on his last photographic expedition to the Tobique Valley. Afterward, he devoted his time to painting until his death on April 5, 1913, in Fredericton

.

This seems like an excessive amount of copying from the source. I need to figure out where to go from here. RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Photographic career:

Done

"Taylor expanded his photographic work..." This needs some context; when did the expansion happen? I guess "the early 1860's" from the next sentence, but pull that up to here.
- Would it be plausible to add "the early 1860's" in the first sentence if the source just says "In addition to his studio work in Fredericton, George Taylor travelled throughout the province creating a photographic record." prior to mentioning the commission he received in 1863?

(this reply will be edited after more of the review is updated) B3251 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely are several passages that, as much as I tried to, I couldn't think of how to completely rewrite so that the whole flow gets messed up. I can try to think of another way to write it all, let me know what you think. B3251 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I would leave out the bit about New Brunswick being a colony at the time. That may be true, but it's not core to understanding the subject, so doesn't need to be in the lead.

Early life and career

"George Taylor developed an early interest" -> "He developed an early interest..."
"from local Garrison members", lowercase garrison (two places).
"started creating his first daguerreotypes". Make this "started creating daguerreotypes" or "created his first daguerreotypes"
"as a carpenter during", maybe "during" -> "in"?
Or how about, "As a teenager, Taylor created his first daguerreotypes and continued to develop his photographic skills, while working as a carpenter"?
"from the wife of a 22nd (Cheshire) Regiment captain", the cited source doesn't say anything about this. The fact that this was a particular regiment seems unimportant, but maybe you could say, "from the wife of an officer stationed at the garrison" (assuming that can be sourced).
"They continued to be married until Mary Avery's death" this seems awkward. Unless otherwise stated, I think the reader will assume they continued to be married, so maybe just "Mary dies on February..."

Photographic career

"Taylor expanded his photographic work..." This needs some context; when did the expansion happen? I guess "the early 1860's" from the next sentence, but pull that up to here.
"potentially becoming one of the first photographers". Either "potentially the first", or just "one of the first", you don't need both "potentially" and "one of".
"Imperial Regiments" -> lowercase.
"with whom he frequently collaborated with" delete the second "with".
"Using a canoe as his mode of transportation,[11] Taylor traversed the forests and river valleys" => "Taylor traversed the forests and river valleys in a canoe" (or "... by canoe")
"Taylor made revisits" -> "Taylor revisited"
"examples of Taylor's work was featured". was -> were.

Review failed

I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this review due to the copyright violations outlined above. See also WT:GAN#Close parphrasing?. Wikipedia articles need to be written in your own words. Taking whole sentence and paragraphs from a source and shuffling a few words around is what's call close paraphrasing and is a form of copyright infringement. I'm hot happy doing this, because the article is quite interesting and an enjoyable read, but this is one of those criteria where there really isn't any wiggle room. RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @RoySmith, is there by any chance you could take a look to see the changes I made? I've done quite a bit of copyediting but I'm unsure if whether or not my changes have adequately addressed the close paraphrasing issue. I'm interested in re-nominating it, but I would like to first wait for somebody to review this issue to see if it's resolved/not. B3251 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a brief look. My initial impression is that you still have WP:CLOP. For example

while working as a carpenter in the 1850s and 1860s, he continued to develop his photographic skills. He was also a self-taught painter, even though a 22nd (Cheshire) Regiment captain's wife gave him lessons.

vs

working as a carpenter while developing his talent in photography. In 1856 he launched his career as a photographer under the tutelage of portrait photographer David Lawrence of Fredericton. He also received art lessons from Mrs. Cooksley, the wife of a captain in the 22nd Cheshire Regiment, but was largely self-taught as a painter.

You might want to ask for assistance at WP:GOCE. RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't unsure of that one, but if that's the only issue you can find I can probably just remove the more specific parts of it so it's easier to present in original wording. Is that the only one you found? You did say that was an example, so are there more examples of WP:CLOP? am I on the right track? Thanks, B3251 (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the list I originally supplied, I see that "his career spanned various formats, rangingfrom daguerreotypes to wet plates to dry plates" is still there.

I get that this is a difficult area. I think where people run into trouble is when they read a passage in a source and work on altering it sufficiently. They replace words with synonyms and rearrange sentences. It's easy to do this enough to get the automated tools like Earwig to not pick up on it, but a human reading the two passages can tell that one was derived from the other. The trick is not to work on altering the text. What you want to do is read the source, formulate in your mind an understanding of what facts it is conveying, and then express those facts in your own words.

I'm afraid I'm going to be unable to devote the time to doing a full re-review of this. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is a good place to go for more advice. The section on WP:FIXCLOSEPARA#How to write acceptable content seems particularly useful. And, as I suggested earlier, see if the good folks at WP:GOCE can help. Request a review and note in your request that it's for a GA resubmission where close paraphrasing was a particular concern in the first review, so people know what to be looking for.

Lastly, I thank you for continuing to work on this and encourage you to get it into shape for a second review. RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]