Talk:SS Kate (tug)

Australia: New South Wales / Maritime Low‑importance

	Australia portal SS Kate (tug) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Shipwrecks Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Downgrading assessment and tagging as potential copyright violation[edit]

I'm concerned that chunks of the article look like they have been copied word-for-word from the newspaper sources cited. The single-sentence paragraphs throughout the early part of the article are also concerning. Because of this, I am placing a {{Copypaste}} tag on the article, because I am uncertain if the age of the newspaper articles makes them legitimate sources to copy outright instead of paraphrasing and citing.

I'm also downgrading the assessment of the article from B-class to Start/C, because, in addition to the citation/copying issue, I think the text needs a solid copyediting. I went through and standardised the date formatting, but there was also a lot of missing punctuation and odd phrasings. -- saberwyn 09:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you to please remove / reconsider your Copypaste from a source, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy flag

Please take all in Good Faith as I do not wish to fall into any form of argument

In relation to the article created essentially by myself I would highlight that even if every word was taken from a single contemporary newspaper article then it would fall outside copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Australia in a summary "The period of 70 years is counted from the end of the relevant calendar year" all citations are older than this requirement (youngest being from 1914 basically so 99 years ago)

Every paragraph highlights the source (34 different newspaper articles again all outside of copyright) some of which have elements of copy paste and others (typically) edited down to the salient facts relevant to the Kate

As highlighted by the flag you have placed on the article "editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly" there is no content in the article that neither non-free copyrighted content nor not attributed and as such, I feel this flag in unwarranted

I will leave this with you and will not pursue this any further but hope you accept all has been done in good faith and in no way has attempted to hide where any information has be sourced from nor it copyright status

In Relation to the class assessment of the article, I am happy with whatever you feel is relevant and I have neither issues nor concerns as to editing as to improve punctuation and phrasingWhodidwhat (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. Thank you for clarifying the copyright status of the material copy-pasted from old newspaper articles. I'd like to suggest that you do a heavy copyedit of the article, and rephrase as much of the copied content as possible in your own words. -- saberwyn 11:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]