Talk:Optical lift

Close paraphrasing

There seem to be some close paraphrasing issues in this article. I've only done a spot check and some parts were fine. But I noticed:

In optical lift, created by a "lightfoil", the lift is created within the transparent object as light shines through it and is refracted by its inner surfaces. In the lightfoil rods a greater proportion of light leaves in a direction perpendicular to the beam and this side therefore experiences a larger radiation pressure and hence, lift.</blockquote?

versus the source:

In optical lift, created by a lightfoil, the lift is created within the transparent object as light shines through it and is refracted by its inner surfaces. In the lightfoil rods a greater proportion of light leaves in a direction perpendicular to the beam and this side therefore experiences a larger radiation pressure and hence, lift.

And:

Solar sails are generally designed to harness light to "push" a spacecraft, whereas Swartzlander designed their lightfoil to lift in a perpendicular direction; this is where the idea of being able to steer a future solar sail spacecraft may be applied

versus the source:

Solar sails are generally designed to harness light to "push" a spacecraft whereas the Rochester team designed their lightfoil to lift in a perpendicular direction; this is where the idea of being able to steer a future spacecraft comes into the mix.

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. In the first case I did not use " " in lightfoil, and in the second case I spelled out the name of the researcher. Thus the meaning conveyed by the article follows the source's meaning. Cheersh, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is close paraphrasing, the problem being that the article too closely follows the expression of words used in the sources, making it liable to be a violation of copyright. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am not familiar with this policy. As far as I know, all information has to have a reference/citation/reliable source. If I make it up, it would be Original Research. Please explain: Should I copy/paste 100% all quotes or should I rewrite them with totally different wording while keeping the meaning? Thanks, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, you should rewrite them "with totally different wording while keeping the meaning". There is a helpful, albeit lengthy, explanation in this Signpost article. You're right to point out that departing too far from the source can get you into original research territory, the key is, as you say, ensuring the wording, sentence and article structure are totally different. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)