Talk:42nd Air Base Wing/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional notes

 * 1) Earwig indicates a 90+% chance of copyright violations of globalsecurity.org/wmd/agency/42bw.htm, which is copyright and was last modified on 24 July 2011. I have manually confirmed several sentences and fragments of sentences that are identical to sentences and fragments on  globalsecurity.org. However, WikiBlame indicates that at least one of those sentence fragments was added to this article in December 2009, well before the globalsecurity.org page was last modified. IMO, it is likely that globalsecurity.org lifted the text from en WP, rather than the other way around. For that reason, I am not going to pursue the Earwig results further. Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 10:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Broken link: this one Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See note 1. Since you raised the issue after checking Earwig, I found an archived version of the http://web.archive.org/web/20030302141721/http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/agency/42bw.htm GlobalSecurity article on the "42nd Bomb Wing" dated 2 March 2003 that contains the same text that was added to the article.  I seems pretty clear to me that the December 2009 edit lifted the material from GlobalSecurity.  It is unsourced and if you compare the 2009 edit to the Global Security page, I think they will be identical.  In editing the article, I sourced the content elsewhere and did some rephrasing (but kept a lot as called for by Wikimanners -- not making edits just because I like the language better).  I have added the Global Security article (and others) to the external links.  I'll recheck to see if any of the language in the Loring section is supported only by the Global Security site for removal.  Further suggestions are welcome.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How does Earwig reset? I have rewritten the first paragraph of the Cold War section, and checked to see the impact that would have on Earwig's copyvio analysis, and it still compares that paragraph in the GlobalSecurity.com article to the equivalent paragraph in the previous edit. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to mark this as ✅. The text Earwig is using to compare is not the text of the article as it exists.  I can revisit it if anything comes up in a comparison of the GlobalSecurity.com article and the article as it currently exists on Wikipedia.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's still some material in the article now that matches the 2003 archive you link - see https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20030302141721%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalsecurity.org%2Fwmd%2Fagency%2F42bw.htm&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F42d_Air_Base_Wing&minwords=2&minchars=13 Duplication Detector for some examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There are apparently a lot of tools I don't know about.  A few at the top of the page look like they could use some work.  I've diverted, but will return to this to take care of them.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Non-trivial duplicates have been reworded, removed or cited to the GlobalSecurity.org article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

are you now happy about the copyvio issues identified earlier? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite: "Cold War tensions between the United States and Russia came to a head in October 1962. President John F. Kennedy informed the American public" for example still shows as being identical. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this has taken such a long time. I suggest that with the copyvio issue still not completely resolved, and the lack of response for about five weeks to the question about the reliability of Cohn, this article isn't going to be GA soon. I intend to fail it in the next 48 hours on criteria 2b. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Failing per my comments. Some criteria are not complete as I have decided the copyvio and source issues (plus a few MOS issues) are enough to pull up the review. Sorry about that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)