Talk:Reticular materials

Copyright concerns

@Karimbel12: I would just like to express some guidance to you regarding Thilio's concerns about a potential copyright violation in this article needing attention, which can be found in his edit summary here. The 91.4% figure refers to an analysis of the article performed by one of Wikipedia's copyright-assisted tools. Here, the tool was Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which, in its analysis provided here, found a 91.4% similarity in the article's text content largely matching with this Springer Nature article: . This detected similarity flagged it as a suspected copyright violation. Upon further inspection, I see that the Springer article in question was released as an Open Access article with the following rights and permissions stated:

"This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder."

I would like to note that this is a highly permissive copyright license for a research article to grant, and I can see that you've already gone beyond a plain citation here — you have the proper CC attribution notice appended to the reference for this source (and for your other open access sources as well), which is what actually satisfies the license's "appropriate credit" requirement, rather than a bare citation alone. CC 4.0 is a Wikipedia-compatible license, meaning it's permitted to be freely copied onto Wikipedia when attributed this way, so this shouldn't read as an unresolved copyvio once that's understood.

That said, I'd still suggest two things going forward:

1. Since the attribution is already properly in place, a false-positive flag from these tools is likely to keep happening any time someone re-runs a copyvio check, simply because the tools can't distinguish "permitted, attributed copying" from "undisclosed copying" — they just measure text similarity. So it's worth keeping the attribution notices intact and easy to find, and maybe noting the CC status on the talk page too, so future reviewers don't have to re-trace this.
2. Where the material isn't a direct quote, or a direct quote isn't necessary, you may want to paraphrase it in your own words. This isn't a copyright requirement given the license and attribution you already have — it's more that heavy reliance on one source's exact phrasing tends to read like excerpted prose rather than encyclopedic writing, and paraphrasing would help the article's tone stand on its own.

Hope this helps, and carry on. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 14 August 2026 (UTC)