Talk:Microsoft/GA1

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

Reviewer: JerrySa1 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Expect comments by tomorrow.JerrySa1 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to fail this nomination, https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=microsoft&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 shows that this article is a carbon copy in some areas to one of the sources, most of the history section, the entirety of the logo section, and more. A part of the Businesses section copies of another source, seen here, https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=750894695&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.activebrains.co.uk%2Fmicrosoft.html. Speaking of the business section, it is tagged as outdated, which I see as still valid.. JerrySa1 (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This page can be improved once this page meets copyright requirements and the business section is updated.JerrySa1 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've never tried to interpret the results of an Earwig report, but I was surprised by your copyvio finding and had a look. Are you referring to Earwig's "99.0% confidence match with academia.edu/9869063/International_Business_Environment"? That's a 2014 student piece that is clearly a copy of the Wikipedia article; the history section of the Wikipedia article has been stable since before 2014, and the student work cites the Wikipedia article as one of its sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the fact Wikipedia was cited. There's still the issue of the second area though. That's still not enough for quickfail, so this needs an actual review.JerrySa1 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think ActiveBrains also copied from Wikipedia. If the section had been copied from ActiveBrains, the article history at Wikipedia would show the section being created in only one or two edits by the editor violating the copyright. In fact the history shows that the section has been worked on by many editors over several years. The phrase "As of December 2009" is also strong evidence, I think, as it's hard to see how a writer at ActiveBrains would use that wording if it were not copied from Wikipedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that. The Justice department piece may of been plagiarized to but this seems like a quite moot point. Either way the review is closed, and if it is opened again I don't know when the submitter will respond if at all. This and another review were his first edits since 2014, so I am unsure if he can even answer any points.JerrySa1 (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)