Talk:Henry Clay Fry/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Another plagiarism quickfail.

I checked three sources, chosen among the 20 in the article as the ones recent enough to still be in copyright and, among those, the first three I was able to check. In all three I found plagiarism, wording so close to the source as to have been copied from it and lightly rephrased rather than freshly written.

Our article: "The glass was pressed into a mold where previously the technique of cut glass had only been blown by hand." Kane 1997: "The glass was pressed into a mold ... Previously, cut glass had been blown."

Our article: "at it [sic] peak could produce thirty-five thousand tumblers a day with one hundred workers" Hawkins 2009: "At their peak they could produce thirty-five thousand tumblers per day with one hundred workers". The material sourced to Hawkins in three other places is also closely paraphrased, but not as close as this one.

Our article (credited to source but not marked as a direct quote): "produced the finest cut glass made in an American glasshouse in the first years of the twentieth century". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "produced ... the finest cut glass made in an American glasshouse in the first years of this century".

As with Talk:Conrad Hubert/GA1, this needs a ground-up rewrite, with all material from modern sources freshly organized with fresh (not copied and rephrased) prose or (in unusual cases where keeping the same wording is necessary) marked and attributed as quotes, and with all wording that is copied from out-of-copyright sources clearly identified as coming from those sources.