The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not promoted after 34 days.

Brief review of discussion regarding plagiarism and close paraphrasing

Lionratz (talk · contribs) asked editors to check for close paraphrasing on 02:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC), 29 days ago:
Lastly, since I do not access to the citations, I will assume good faith. However, do check that you have not plagiarized anything from them. (see this for more info)

Issues with close paraphrasing, copyright violations, and plagiarism were raised by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) on 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC), 14 days ago. She provided a paragraph-long example, noting that there were more close paraphrasing issues.

The issues were addressed, and Nikkimaria commented again at 02:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC). She noted several more close paraphrasing concerns and issues with incorrect citations (content cited to a source did not appear in that source).

At 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC), she noted several more examples of plagiarism and noted that "[t]his seems to be a pervasive problem in your research writing." At 02:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC) and 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC) she provided further examples of close paraphrasing.

Piotrus (talk · contribs) provided guiding comments to his students at 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC), 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC), 18:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC), and 17:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The issues were addressed but the article was not completely reviewed for close paraphrasing:

Close paraphrasing

Article: "To obtain a divorce on grounds of adultery the accusing party must present proof that their spouse voluntarily engaged in sexual relations with someone else."
Source: "In order to obtain a divorce on grounds of adultery, you must demonstrate that your spouse voluntarily engaged in sexual relations with someone else."
As noted below by Piotrus (talk · contribs) at 17:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC), I have also noticed "sentence[s] [that] have only had synomym, but not a structure, change".

Incorrect citations

Article: "Research has shown that sexual compatibility is strongest in relationships whose partners are about ten years apart. Given that the average age difference between the members of most couples is smaller than this (by about two to five years), it is no wonder that impotency is a concern for many. Once the hitched pair reaches their third decade, their sex drives tend to desynchronize. Other sexual incompatibilities, such as difference in preferences, worsen the issue. Based upon this consistency problem, couples are able to file for divorce."

Page 11 of The Complete Guide to Divorce Law does not discuss sexual compatibility between spouses. I looked at page 10 and page 12 of the book but could not find the information there either.

Article: "Marrying someone of a different religion, ethnicity, or vastly different culture could also pave the way for divorce. One partner may find himself/herself unable to handle the societal pressures of the arrangement, or may feel pressured to conform to the spouse’s/other culture’s ideals (e.g. child rearing, dietary changes, etc.), which could lead to resentment. In New Hampshire, one unusual ground for divorce is an option for someone whose other half has joined a religious sect that destroys the marriage.

Page 9 of The Complete Guide to Divorce Law does not discuss that marriage to a person of a different religion, ethnicity, etc. can be reasons for divorce. Pages 7, 8, 10, and 11 of this book were also cited in the article. I checked those pages in case the wrong page was cited. I was unable to find this information in any of those pages.

Reason for rejection

I am rejecting this article because of the close paraphrasing and failed verifications. After 34 days, much discussion has occurred and significant improvements to the article have been made. However, the problems I found are not trivial and indicate that the article needs much work. I spotchecked the article for close paraphrasing and other issues. I did not review the entire article, so there may be more close paraphrasing or citation issues that need to be addressed.

Additional comments:

Citing sources like the following:

Nelson; Henderson (1895). A treatise on the law of divorce and annulment of marriage. Vol. 1. Callaghan. pp. 420–443. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
Nelson; Henderson (1895). A treatise on the law of divorce and annulment of marriage. Vol. 1. Callaghan. pp. 444–468. Retrieved 9 October 2011.

should be avoided. Page ranges of over 20 pages make checking sources difficult. The citations should be broken down into small ranges of no more than two pages if the information is spread out through 20 pages.

Several of the sources use "pp." when only one page is being cited. The |p= should be used instead of |pp= in such cases.
In the "Irretrievable breakdown" section, marriage is overlinked.
In the "State acceptance" section, the term "no-fault" is presented inconsistently. It is quoted once, then italicized, and without quotes or italics.
ISBNs should be consistently formatted: either with our without hyphens.
Nelson; Henderson (1895). A treatise on the law of divorce and annulment of marriage. Vol. 1. Callaghan. p. 500. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
- Nelson and Henderson's book was published in 1895 and was used to cite "Defenses commonly used to prevent a fault divorce are". The article does not make it clear that the information is over one century old. A more current source should be used since the article is framed to discuss contemporary issues.

Concluding comments:

This is the second DYK nomination from this class I have had to fail. (The first is here.) The common reasons for failure were close paraphrasing and failed verifications. I recommend that in the future, the articles are checked for close paraphrasing and inaccurate citations prior to a DYK nomination. DYK's resources are limited and this nomination has expended much time from several reviewers. There are deep problems with this article that cannot be resolved within DYK's narrow timeframe. I thank the students, particularly Nas132 (talk · contribs), for responding to and addressing Nikkimaria's concerns about close paraphrasing.
I thank Piotrus (talk · contribs) for guiding his students during this DYK nomination and helping them with editing the articles. This is frequently not the case, as noted here and here by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs).

Cunard (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Grounds for divorce (United States law)

[edit]

(

)

... that there are multiple grounds for divorce?

Comment: This is a class assignment of my students, one of the rare ones that meet the 5x expansion within 5 days (whether you look at Sept 28-Oct 3 or Sept 29-Oct 4). I know the article still has issues, and I'll ask the review to keep in mind that the students are new to Wikipedia and have never gotten a DYK done before. Please give them as much suggestions and advise as possible, and I am sure they'll try to address the issues raised. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Naf24 (talk), Nas132 (talk), Ntj2 (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hook review
Format	Citation	Neutrality	Interest
Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)

Article review
Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	AGF

I think that there are areas that can be improved:

* The article is not neutral. The laws stated here are mainly US laws, when this topic is very broad-based and many other countries have similar laws in place. Try adding examples from other countries to meet Wikipedia:NPOV

* The lead section is too short. The lead should be a summary of the points covered in the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for more details.

* Try to reformat URLs by using the [www.example.com Example] template found in the "Help" found at the top of the editing box for the "External links" sections. You can also try find more relevant links (like those from overseas).

* This is my opinion, but I think that the article is not well referenced because there are large areas of text that do not have a citation. Also, short sections like the "Defenses to grounds" section can be expanded.

Lastly, since I do not access to the citations, I will assume good faith. However, do check that you have not plagiarized anything from them. (see this for more info) I am not a very experienced reviewer, so you may like to get a second opinion. Good luck!--Lionratz (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! We definitely will be adding information on other countries and expanding the lead section.--Naf24 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions!! We are still working on our wiki page and we still have alot to add. We also have alot of final touches to do. We will take your suggestions into serious consideration. --Nas132 (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The article has improved a lot. However, in my opinion, the hook does not sound really interesting and might not attract much attention. Perhaps you all might want to address this?--Lionratz (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that in the United States a criminal conviction can be a ground for divorce?; perhaps this is more interesting? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an option. I wonder if the students would like to propose anything? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That does sound more interesting. We are actually currently working on the intro paragraph to the page because it needs fine tuning. Thanks for your input --Naf24 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the complement! Thank you for the suggestion! As my group member stated above we are still doing adjustments to the page and that is one thing we are still working on. Keep us updated on what you think of our page!--Nas132 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am all for ALT1, and since all other parameters checks out, I think this article should be ready. Good job!--Lionratz (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

: close paraphrasing/copyvio concerns. One example (there are more): "Ultimately, at least one spouse might make sacrifices based on a long-term commitment to the marriage, then the grounds for divorce should shift to mutual consent.[6] The sacrifice is a cost of change.[6] With the changes in the parties circumstances, the grounds for divorce would change to mutual consent.[6] The reason for the change is because accommodations for the long-term benefit of the marriage may be subtle, setting a predetermined period, such as 5 years, as the basis for the shift from no-fault divorce to mutual consent divorce would seem reasonable" (in the article) versus "Eventually, at least one spouse may make sacrifices based on a long-term commitment to the marriage, and then the grounds for divorce should shift to mutual consent...This sacrifice is a cost of the change...With these changes in the couple's circumstances, the ground for divorce would shift to mutual consent. Because accommodations for the long-term benefit of the marriage may be subtle, setting a predetermined period, such as 5 years, as the basis for the shift from no-fault divorce to mutual consent divorce would seem to be reasonable" here). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed it so thank you for pointing that out. I would appreciate that you list all examples that you feel that are close to paraphrasing/copyvio concerns, and I will change them asap. --Nas132 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think, NM, is this enough? Is there anything else? I'll add Google Book links to facilitate verification.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly better, but I would say it's still uncomfortably close. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Further examples:

"Presently, all states recognize some type of no-fault divorce.[4] If the decision is made that a no-fault divorce is best for your party the situation, then, neither party has to prove any grounds for divorce.[4] All that needs to be done for the no-fault is to have one member from the party acknowledge that things did not work out between both spouses.[4] The mutual understanding to attain a no-fault ground divorce is comprised of "incompatibility," "irretrievable breakdown," or "irreconcilable differences."[4] A no-fault divorce is generally less expensive, quicker to complete, and easier on the spouses and their children because no proof is needed.[4] In conclusion, the no-fault divorces are highly customary as compared to fault divorces." vs "Currently, all states recognize some form of no-fault divorce.[4] If you opt for this kind of divorce, you don't need to prove that your spouse did anything to cause you to seek a divorce.Instead, all you really need to do is acknowledge that things "just didn't work out" between the two of you. Common grounds for obtaining a no-fault divorce include "incompatibility," "irretrievable breakdown," or "irreconcilable differences." Because you don't need to prove fault, this type of divorce is usually less expensive, quicker to complete, and easier on spouses and their children than most fault divorces. As a result, no-fault divorces are much more frequent than fault divorces."
"However, a majority of states decided to keep their existing fault grounds and just added no-fault ground provisions which created a dual system of divorce.[5]" vs "A majority of states, however, chose to maintain their existing fault grounds and add no-fault provisions, thus creating a dual system of divorce."
"The results of the survey revealed that the Americans are not happy with the no-fault divorce and are in favor of changes that would make divorces more difficult to obtain.[7]" vs "...half of all Americans are not happy with no-fault divorce and are in favor of changes that would make it more difficult to obtain a divorce"

I didn't finish all of the sources (stopped midway through FN 7), but this should be a good indication that substantial work is needed. Keep in mind that plagiarism/close paraphrasing extends not only to word-for-word copying, but also synonym substitution, phrasing and paragraph structure. In addition to the issues detailed above, I'm also noticing some other sourcing problems - for example, FN 4 should include page 15 of the source, and I can't find the info on defences from fault divorces anywhere in that source (it's later cited to a different source, but the section titled "Fault divorce" uses FN 4). Please double-check. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

how is that first example of what I have even close to whats in the book? The stuff that I did cite I put in quotation marks.--Nas132 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

[synonym ], "all states recognize some" [synonym ] of no-fault divorce - for the first sentence. Same structure, only 2 out of 9 words changed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made more corrections to my paragraphs to the examples provided above. Hopefully these changes that I have made are more satisfactory than disappointment. If anyone else sees anymore errors in my sentences that are to close to text I would greatly apperciate it if you would provide examples so I would be able to have a visual of my mistake and I will make the changes asap. I know no excuses are excepted in situations like this but this is my first wiki page and this was not my intentsions to have a form of plagiarism in my paragraphs.--Nas132 (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but this isn't really an obscure wiki-rule - plagiarism is something which students are taught to avoid in academic writing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't rechecked the above changes yet, but continuing from FN 7:

"Economist Robert Rowthorn disagrees that no-fault divorce impairs the commitment that is key to the nature of marriage.[7] The principal of this argument is that marriage, which has similarities to a business partnership, is an institution of trust which enables two people to have confidence to make long-term investments in their relationship.[7]" vs "...the economist Robert Rowthorn argued that no-fault divorce undermines the commitment that is key to the nature of marriage. His central argument is that marriage, like a business partnership, is an institution of trust which enables two people to have the confidence to make long-term investments in their relationship." Note also that your version actually presents the opposite of what the source says via the substitution of "disagrees" for "argued".
On the other hand, direct quotes should be identical to the source, and the quote from Wardle you attribute to FN 7 is not
"At the turn of the millennium, Wardle further states that some type of reform will be accepted in many states within the next decade.[7]" vs "She also asserts that...some sort of divorce reform will be adopted in many states within the next decade...she wrote this at the turn of the millenium." This example is better paraphrased than some of the others, but includes some identical phrasing
"2) Fault base divorce hinders the effect on marital misconduct.[7] 3) No-fault divorce provides unjustified outcomes toward the division of property allocations and alimony awards.[7] 4) No-fault divorce is a condition of wider cultural change that reflects immoral thinking about marriage and families.[7] Ellman feels that none of these arguments are well founded.[7]" vs "fault-based divorce has a deterrent effect on marital misconduct; (iii) that no-fault divorce leads to unjust outcomes in property allocations and alimony awards; and (iv) that no-fault divorce is an aspect of wider cultural changes which reflect amoral thinking about marriage and the family. Ellman concludes that none of these arguments is well-founded."

Stopping there. This seems to be a pervasive problem in your research writing. It might be advantageous for you to seek guidance from a writing centre or other venue to help you avoid overly close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the next step I have to take to get these citation boxes off our wiki page?--Nas132 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

By "citation boxes" do you mean the close paraphrasing and copyediting tags at the top? If so, you need to address the issues in the article sufficiently that they are no longer required. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that while your recent edits are helping with synonyms and such, you still need to change the sentence structure. Just like the example I mentioned above, the "Fault base divorce" [synonomym] "the effect on marital misconduct" is not a sufficient change. I've noticed that in some instances you expanded and elaborated various sentences, that's good, adding your own words helps a lot. Consider this sentence: "Marital misconduct is affected negatively by many factors, such as fault base divorce." This sentence keeps the two legal jargon terms, but not only changes the rest of the words, it changes the structure (as much as is possible in a short sentence). You could improve it even further, by adding or merging (if exists previously) the definition of a "fault base divorce" to the sentence, ending with something like "Mm is affected negatively by.... as fbd, which can be defined as...". Absorb the information, then break down the sentences into smaller parts, move them around forming new sentences. This will change the structure, per my comment on your talk page, and should, hopefully, result in the tags at the top being no longer necessary. Again, look at the example at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, particularly the one in the section that shows what is an acceptable rewrite. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, could you explain the rationale for the copy editing tag? I am not very fond of it, as it is so broad, and I don't think the article suffers from a broad range of problems, beyond the close paraphrasing issues (for the start/C class article, of course).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am appreciative of all the help that everyone has given me. I will continue to make adjustments, and I always welcome helpful advice. I will take the advice of going to a writing center to enhance my grammar. I just ask you to give me a few days to do that because I have to schedule a appointment at the writing center, and I have to ask my advisor on how to schedule a appointment. I promise you it is my intention to put my best foot forward and help this page grow in a positive way.--Nas132 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Through Nikkimaria may want to comment on grammar, I think that the writing center help would be most useful in discussing how to avoid close paraphrasing. While I certainly encourage you to seek their assistance, please note that this DYK nomination does not have a few days; the cp issues should be fixed this weekend. At the same time, as I said above, I think you've been making progress in fixing them, and changing the sentence structure shouldn't take you too much time. Let me know if any of the examples or suggestions we gave you were not clear enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ok thank you I will work on this asap. --Nas132 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I made the change to the last example that you gave. Just to make sure I understand you still need me to make futher adjustments on my other sections?--Nas132 (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you think you've addressed all close paraphrasing issues - in other words, redid the structure of all of your sentences so they do not resemble the original ones? When you'd like me to review all of your work again, I can do so, but please keep in mind my grading announcement. If you are not sure whether a given sentence is too close to the original or not, rewrite it further to be sure. PS. A cursory glance at this suggests that there are still sentences whose structure hasn't changed, and where only some words were replaced with synonyms. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I had made a substantial amount of changes since this was brought to my attention yesterday. I am keeping in mind your grading announcement. I did notice points were deducted from my grade. I did look at the link that was provided and the things that are in red are the things that need to still be changed on my side? --Nas132 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The things in read are just to show you (us) what has changed (as a result of you recent edits), so that you can see which parts may require further clean up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I made things more clear and concise. Hopefully this will eliminate the problem.--Nas132 (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecking work that's been done here: "State acceptance" paragraph (FN 4) is structurally still quite close to the source, and includes a verbatim phrase ("less expensive, quicker to complete, and easier on the spouses and their children"). The non-paraphrasing source issues I raised previously for FN 4 have also not been addressed. "Shift of accepatnace" section (FNs 5 and 6) is still structurally quite close and includes some near-verbatim wording - for example, " A compelling amount of states followed California's lead and now only have no-fault grounds" vs " A significant number of states followed California's lead and now have only no-fault grounds"., or "sets a predetermined period, such as 5 years, as the basis for the shift from no-fault divorce to mutual consent divorce" vs "setting a predetermined period, such as five years, as the basis for the shift from no-fault to mutual consent divorce". In short, this article still has concerning issues from only a partial check. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Economist Robert Rowthorn states that no-fault divorce impairs the commitment that is key to the nature of marriage.[7]" vs "economist Robert Rowthorn argued that no-fault divorce undermines the commitment that is key to the nature of marriage.". Please check all sources before asking me to revisit, as I'm still finding problems here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are still sentences that haven't had their structure changed. Again, looking at article's history here shows which sentence have only had synomym, but not a structure, change. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking better now, but there's still some phrases that are too close:

"force the parties to think...if a reconciliation is possible" vs "force the parties to think...whether a reconciliation is possible"
"No-fault divorces are less expensive, easier to obtain, and less stressful on the spouses and their children because they do not require one to prove fault" vs "Because you don't need to prove fault, this kind of divorce is usually less expensive, quicker to complete, and easier on spouses and their children"
The non-paraphrasing sourcing concerns earlier pointed out for FN 4 remain to be addressed. Also, for FN 5, you've reversed the "some" vs "majority" groups
"Ira Ellman has focused on and criticized four principal arguments" vs "Ira Ellman has focused on and criticized four principal arguments".

I also note that I don't have access to some of the sources used, but these should also be checked for potential problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC) ))

Hello DYK! All problems were fixed with our page, and the citation box was taken off. --Nas132 (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)