Talk:Carolina (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 01:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi! Looking forward to work with you. Have a nice day.  ℛonherry  ☘  05:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for dropping the message. I should give my initial comments in a day or two :) Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall the article is looking really good. There was some minor lang issues that I have fixed. However I ran the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector and it has a 85.5% similarity with this blog wiki. Upon first glance, this is a blog wiki so I could just ignore (right?) but I'll take more time to look into it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a fan website..a blog but not much information about it. One stark difference is that the blog does not cite any sources and it definitely isn't a secondary source. Nothing is verifiable in that blog whereas the article I'm reviewing is well cited and verifiable. There are no other similarities beside that blog and I assume good faith that contributors to the article wrote in their own words (and that blog took a large part of the Wikipedia article) so I am going to pass the nomination. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that blogs copies prose from Wikipedia for all of their articles.  ℛonherry  ☘  05:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall the article is looking really good. There was some minor lang issues that I have fixed. However I ran the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector and it has a 85.5% similarity with this blog wiki. Upon first glance, this is a blog wiki so I could just ignore (right?) but I'll take more time to look into it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a fan website..a blog but not much information about it. One stark difference is that the blog does not cite any sources and it definitely isn't a secondary source. Nothing is verifiable in that blog whereas the article I'm reviewing is well cited and verifiable. There are no other similarities beside that blog and I assume good faith that contributors to the article wrote in their own words (and that blog took a large part of the Wikipedia article) so I am going to pass the nomination. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that blogs copies prose from Wikipedia for all of their articles.  ℛonherry  ☘  05:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that blogs copies prose from Wikipedia for all of their articles.  ℛonherry  ☘  05:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)