Talk:Cone Mills Corporation/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: DocFreeman24 (talk · contribs) 06:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'll plan to review this in the next few days! DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I'm sorry to have to do this but I'm afraid I need to quick fail this article as it contains what I believe to be a copyright violation. Specifically, several sentences from this article appear to be a a very close paraphrase of this source, which Earwig also reports is a 73% match. Here are a few of the more problematic sentences from the article that appear to be near-direct lifts from the UNC source:


 * "In 1887, Moses and Ceasar Cone invested $50,000 in the C. E. Graham Mill Manufacturing Company in Asheville, North Carolina, which manufactured cotton plaids. The mill became the Asheville Cotton Mills in 1893."


 * "Chartered in New Jersey, the company's headquarters were in New York City, and Moses served as its president. In 1893, the Cone brothers built one of the first textile finishing plants in the South, called Southern Finishing & Warehouse Company."


 * "In 1950, Cone Mills Corporation announced a merger with Dwight Manufacturing Company of Alabama, a twill and drill manufacturer, and the following year purchased the company outright."


 * "From 1958 to 1969, they were involved with the annual Miss North Carolina Pageant. The company provided fabric for wardrobes given to each year's winner. They also provided fabric for the presentation gown each winner wore to represent North Carolina in the annual Miss America Pageant."

These are just a few examples I spotted that were also flagged by Earwig. I checked to determine whether this is an instance of reverse copying but everything I've uncovered suggests that this is not the case. For instance, the source states that it was "processed" in September 2007, but this article was not created until November 2007. Similarly, it does not make sense to me that UNC would paraphrase Wikipedia as opposed to copying it whole cloth. I acknowledge that the earliest archived version of the UNC page is from 2016.

I also checked to determine whether anything on the UNC website indicates that the text is public domain or comparably licensed, but I could not find anything that suggested UNC had authorized the use of this text.

In closing, it is my belief that a preponderance of evidence suggests that these are copyright violations and that this requires a quick fail. If I'm missing something please let me know as I don't mean to reach such conclusions. I was quite looking forward to reviewing this article and I'm sorry to have to quick fail it. DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: