Talk:Phil Belbin

Copyright problems
This article contains a number of instances of plagiarism from at least two of the sources cited here. Running the duplicate detector revealed plagiarism from here and here. This needs to be remedied.
 * I believe that any copyright violations have now been addressed. Dan arndt (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the paraphrases are still too close, or contain too much of the same phrasing from the source to pass muster. For one example, the line "His work appeared in many publications, including Readers Digest (where he was the first Australian artist commisioned to provide illustrations for Reader's Digest Condensed Books)..." contains nearly the same exact phrasing as the source: "He was the first Australian artist commissioned to do illustrations for Reader’s Digest Condensed Books".. There are other instances as well, particularly from --Cúchullain t/ c 13:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A number of the potential examples of plagiarism predate my edits to the article, which I accepted in good faith. Others are simple factual information or titles, i.e. 'New York Society of Illustrators', 'Royal Society of the Arts', 'sons Graeme and Bruce', 'Peril on Venus' that can't be changed and are properly cited. In saying all that I am working my way through the early information and trying to modify it to ensure that it contains either multiple citations or is phrased in such a way that it avoids being plagarism. Dan arndt (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for taking the time to take care of this. It looks like the line(s) I mentioned above were yours. In this case simple rephrasing should do it. For what it's worth, the wording should not be exactly the same or a close paraphrase of any other source. A good rule of thumb is that if three or more words (excluding titles and the like) are written in the same order as the source, try to rephrase it.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have made further modifications - including inline citation relating to Readers digest, I hope that this addresses all your concerns. I think that the changes have made the article a better one. Dan arndt (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes as well. It looks good now. Thanks, Dan.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)