Talk:Rebecca Tobey

Article quality
and. Please don't take this the wrong way but I disagree with this meeting Good Article criteria. For a biography I don't honestly think it comes close. It tells me very little about her life with no coherent structure, and barely any indication of when she did certain things. Most sources about her seem to be self promotional ones to the point I doubt there's even enough material to produce a proper GA. Reqesting another opinion from. I would like to see it further improved but I'm not sure it's possible given the sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look. At 3566 bytes of prose, this article is probably not meeting GA criteria #3a ("Broad in coverage"). Doing a quick Google Books search I can see a number of journals that mention Tobey's art and cover their working methods (random example). Also, the "list of works" does not seem to meet the guidelines for list incorporation, which is GA criteria #1b. So there are two immediate parts of the GA criteria that do not obviously appear to be met, and hence this article should not have passed GA review at this time. I also agree that the choice of sources is not great; some are primary sources which should be used with extreme care on a biography of a living person, and mean the article is still at risk of being sent to WP:AFD on notability grounds.
 * We can do this the "easy way", which is to revert the review and get someone else to do it, or the "hard way" which is to send it to Good article re-assessment, where there is the risk that highly experienced editors such as and  will see it and give it a roasting. Sorry, but that's pretty much the only options we've got.
 * Additionally, I am concerned that Carbrera recently had This Is What the Truth Feels Like fail a GA review. I know is a hard taskmaster and does very detailed reviews, but IMHO they are one of the best GA reviewers currently active, and if they say your work fails GA because of plagiarism, it's a cause for concern that you should be reviewing. Sorry to be blunt like that. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would definitely get a serious grilling at GAR. I'm not going to take it there. I've asked Women in Red to see if they can improve it. Honestly it would need quite a lot of work to really be at GA level, but I think it could probably be improved to a B class one, though I don't see many solid sources being picked up in a google search. Let's give it a week anyway and see if it improves.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the easiest way forward is to re-open the review, change it to failed (with a note saying consensus agreed it didn't meet criteria 1b and 3a even after improvements), and re-assess the article as B-class. If you can agree to that, then we can resolve this quickly with the minimum of drama, and that's always a good thing. In particular, I don't want you getting the impression we're having a go at you, just chalk this one up to experience and you'll be a better GA reviewer for it. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delays in my reply, I've been extremely busy expanding This Is What the Truth Feels Like. I can agree to what was mentioned; I believe I noted that I was concerned for the article earlier, and was unaware of the additional sources out there. I'm not too familiar with Tobey's work and have only come across it in some dusty book in my loft that only briefly compared one's work with Tobey's. I agree I shouldn't have reviewed the article, as I was completely oblivious to what was out there and readily available. I apologize for this inconvenience I have brought upon the article.


 * On a different note... In regards to This Is What the Truth Feels Like, I can honestly and confidently say that I was not the user who placed the quote that is being called out for plagiarism; in addition, I believe the user who did add them mistakingly left out quotation marks and had no intentions of plagiarizing anyone's work. If you want to discuss anything else with me, feel free to ping me; this is like my second home. Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

I think the review was OK, could have been worse, though you did miss some glaring ones like the co-uthored typo. But I don't think this should have ever been nominated or passed as a GA unless stronger material can be found. I do appreciate that Nvvchar has made the effort to create it and promote it, but in this case it's difficult to accept it as a GA quality entry.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've done the paperwork on the review. Carbrera, I'll believe you didn't add the close paraphrasing yourself, however when you nominate an article for GA you need to take responsibility for all of it, including the bits you didn't write yourself. This is why, in general, most GA candidates I throw up have a comprehensive rewrite from top to bottom, and I think Blofeld's working procedure is the same. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)