The NASA article appears to be mostly, though not entirely, verbatim excerpts from the Caltech article. There's one paragraph in NASA that's mostly not from Caltech. This really strains the two-independent-source requirement.
When the focus is a publication event, it's highly desirable to provide a link to the thing published, either in an External links section (if not drawn on as a source) or in the Sources section if used.
These brief articles about a result recently published are often hard to provide many sources for. Multi-sourcing combats copyright issues; well, I'll say a bit about that below; and it provides breadth of perspective and, to some extent, evidence of newsworthiness. Keeping in mind that the two cited sources are in addition to the publication itself, I judged them reassuring on the newsworthiness front; the breadth of perspective seems marginal, though in the end I've allowed it.
Copyright.
The NASA article in relation to the Caltech article presents a perplexing copyright situation, since NASA publications are in the public domain, but putting stuff in the public domain is unusual and afaict Caltech's article is under copyright — yet NASA copies a number of paragraphs of it. I chose to be cautious, and provide distance from source in all cases.
Having made that choice, I found quite a bit of text was very close to the sources. As a result, I copyedited heavily enough that I had to think carefully about whether I was still sufficiently independent for review.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
The NASA article appears to be mostly, though not entirely, verbatim excerpts from the Caltech article. There's one paragraph in NASA that's mostly not from Caltech. This really strains the two-independent-source requirement.
When the focus is a publication event, it's highly desirable to provide a link to the thing published, either in an External links section (if not drawn on as a source) or in the Sources section if used.
These brief articles about a result recently published are often hard to provide many sources for. Multi-sourcing combats copyright issues; well, I'll say a bit about that below; and it provides breadth of perspective and, to some extent, evidence of newsworthiness. Keeping in mind that the two cited sources are in addition to the publication itself, I judged them reassuring on the newsworthiness front; the breadth of perspective seems marginal, though in the end I've allowed it.
Copyright.
The NASA article in relation to the Caltech article presents a perplexing copyright situation, since NASA publications are in the public domain, but putting stuff in the public domain is unusual and afaict Caltech's article is under copyright — yet NASA copies a number of paragraphs of it. I chose to be cautious, and provide distance from source in all cases.
Having made that choice, I found quite a bit of text was very close to the sources. As a result, I copyedited heavily enough that I had to think carefully about whether I was still sufficiently independent for review.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Currently, the Wikipedia indicated linked article "quasar_PG-1302-102" doesn't exist. I have a draft article up at English Wikipedia available at w:en:Draft:PG 1302-102 ; note that there should be no dash between PG and 1302 and there should be a dash between 1302 and 102. This is a technical matter, as the dash is a minus sign, signifying negative. There's also things like PG 1302+102 , so the minus sign can also be positive. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
