There's something a bit odd about this batch of camogie articles, which appear to have been created by three new users editing sequentially roughly between 4-5am GMT. Only one overlapping edit (time-wise) that I can see. I don't think there is a copyright concern as these are articles on annual contests and there is a similarity of style, phrasing and format which tends to be the case with this sort of article. But I think it might be worth someone else having a look before these are marked as OK.--CharlieDelta (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Content split without discussion or attribution. Attribution now added and notes left on both article Talk pages and with the contributor. CharlieDelta (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. Didn't find anything that was a concern here although I did re-write one sentence, which although I don't think it was a problem, was closer to the source than it needed to be. --Dpmuk (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Gabriel Cousens was drastically condensed by other editors and I no longer think there are any significant close paraphrasing issues. Ocaasit | c19:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I'd agree that this has changed significantly enough that any concerns about your contributions should be gone. --Dpmuk (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is largely fine but I've let Ocaasi know that there are two sentences which I think could do with a re-write although they're probably border line cases. Dpmuk (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Have just rewrote those two sentences myself --Dpmuk (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting a review of articles I recently wrote after some editors expressed concerns about close paraphrasing.
This looks largely good to me. I've removed a couple of sentences that I thought were too closely paraphrased and asked Ocaasi if they are willing to re-write one paragraph. If that's done I think the close paraphrase tag can go. I also have a slight concern about the number of quotes used but given that this is the sort of person where we need to be reporting their views I don't think this aspect needs urgent attention. Dpmuk (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
