Talk:Gateshead Thunder (1999)

	This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Rugby league Mid‑importance Gateshead Thunder (1999) is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi, note that this article still is very close to the source. See here for the matches. Please rewrite in your own words. While facts are not copyrightable, creative aspects of presentation, such as word choice and order, are. Also, simply re-arranging or replacing a few words to remove red from the detector is also still considered close paraphrasing. One should not be able to follow along with the article in one window, and the source in another, and get the exact same information, if that helps as a guideline. Thanks for the article, Crow^Caw 21:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is 61.7% really that bad? There's only so many words in the English language after all, and both articles are about the same subject. Anyway, I didn't do the original CopyVio and I've tried my best to fix it. I hope this article can continue without the need for deletion though as the subject is

notable. Cheers RugbyXIII (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Yes, 61.7% is pretty bad. I understand that there are not always ways to rephrase something, but a lot of what is here could easily be reworded without closely paraphrasing. The article is not in deletion danger though the closely paraphrased bits may be unceremoniously culled from the article (which is why I prefer to bring it up here where the experts are rather than risk it being gutted by someone unfamiliar with the material). Thanks, Crow^Caw 22:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if User:Mooretwin doesn't do a re-word, I may have another crack at it myself in a few days. Cheers! RugbyXIII (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for you to reword it. I didn't write the text - it is inherited from the previous article from which this article was "de-merged". Mooretwin (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]