Talk:George Michael/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DJ-Joker16 (talk · contribs) 01:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Needs a little repair regarding reference "52". Reference "52" had a 89.9% chance of violation and while looking it over, it indeed is copy pasted. Not sure if it's copied from Wikipedia or the article, but either way it needs some cleanup. Besides that, it's a really good article!

(edit conflict) DJ-Joker16, if there is any plagiarism, the nomination cannot be passed. What you need to do is to explain here where the plagiarism is so that the nominator can fix it—the review should remain open while the article text is being reworded to eliminate the infringement.

I realize that this is your first GA review, and know well that doing GA reviews is a learning process. Please note that the article should never be passed until all of the criteria have been met, and that it is quite typical that issues are found in the initial review that get fixed during the back-and-forth of the review process. Thanks!

Note that I wrote the above before you changed this from a pass to a fail. What I said still holds: you need to give the nominator a chance to correct the problems. I suggest you put the article on hold, which notifies the nominator that some work still needs to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset I checked the histories and the source in question and in fact the website was copy-pasting from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ-Joker16, if they've copied from the Wikipedia article, then (if they don't credit us) they're the plagiarizers. However, that does call into question using them as a source to begin with, since if they're copying us they can't be considered reliable nor the information verifiable. You'll want to ask the nominator GoAnimateFan199Pro to find a reliable source for the cited information; since circa-club.com can't be used because (as you've established) it's them copying us.

Once this has been solved, either by finding a valid new source or removing the information, if there aren't any other issues with the article, even down to typos or grammatical glitches (they also need to get fixed before final approval), then you'll want to properly pass the article. Please see the instructions on the GA nomination and reviewing instructions page; there is still more for you to do to complete the review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Thanks, will do. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing statement[edit]

Gave it a week and Reference "52" was not fixed. According to the copyio tool it has a 89.9% chance of a violation and when looking it over, it is copied and pasted from each other. As for who copied who is unclear. I gave GoAnimateFan199Pro, the nominator, one week to fix it and nothing was done. Therefore I must fail this GAN. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]