Talk:Hanna-Honeycomb House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

An entry from Hanna-Honeycomb House appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 12 March 2007.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Santa Clara County, California may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] This article is almost exactly a copy of the article it references!

Is this plagiarism? A violation of copyright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlowery (talk • contribs) 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes to the first, no to the second. The original source is the National Parks Service, a US federal government agency. Works of the US federal government are in the public domain. Thus, no copyright infringement. But, I just did add some more info from an old Stanford news article (which is copyrighted, so that I had to summarize). howcheng {chat} 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The "NPS" tag suggesting someone was proud that the article incorporated text from a National Park Service website is a clear indication that the article is plagiarized. I suppose if it is plagiarized, it is better to acknowledge that than not. The article is now a mess, a mixture of plagiarized text and newly written text. I am inclined to blank it out and start over, although that would lose some new written text. I marked it with "refimprove" tag for the moment, may return to blank it all out. doncram (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)