# Talk:William Lofland Dudley

Chemistry is likely my worst academic subject. From what I understand, Dudley was praised for explaining that the aurora borealis was neon gas, while today it's known not to be neon but work via the same process as a neon light, which is probably the point which Dudley got praise for elucidating. Please do clean this up if you can; to any interested, the man's scientific work leaves no shortage of material for the scientifically inclined. Cake (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Lofland Dudley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 05:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

While I do not quick fail things lightly, the fact that the nominator appears to be the one who has engaged in the close paraphrasing really don't leave me any other choice.  With regrets, Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. All good points. No hard feelings about the fail. I would not submit it for review if its passing were guaranteed. Dudley is one of the more interesting guys whom I have tried to beef up on wikipedia. My interest with the sporting figures has me attempt to struggle with the chemistry. There are apparently quite a few chemists in the history the sport, such as Knute Rockne, but I digress. Will try to pare down his football legacy, and avoid plagiarizing Traughber (not the intention of course, but it shows my need to review the sources if nothing else). Hopefully then it can attract more. Cake (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
this, leaving aside the direct quotes which are appropriately attributed, should give you a guide to where the close paraphrasing hits.  See WP:Close paraphrasing for more tips and guidelines--when copying large amounts of stuff from one site, it often takes conscious effort to reframe and rephrase things entirely, rather than just rearranging and rejiggering a thing or two.  Since that site lists a 2005 publication date, I doubt it's adapted from an article started in 2014. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a great tool. The English is probably even clumsier now, but hopefully ~50% seen by a computer is enough to avoid the charge. Cake (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Lofland Dudley/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Fiachra10003 (talk · contribs) 23:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)