Talk:Ted Stevens/GA3

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 19:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this is the third review within a year, I will be scrutinizing the article to make sure all issues raised in prior nominations have been addressed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I hope we've made it for now, third time's the charm. ^^ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 22:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'll get to trimming unnecessary details and fixing copyvio issues ^^ ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 12:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey! Can you direct me to some of the more egregious issues? I'm not the most intelligent, hehe. O_o ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 14:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the Earwig comparison here - we're still not at an acceptable level of summarization. The similarities in word choice and structure are pretty egregious. I'm happy to continue pointing out areas for improvement, but bear in mind that fixing copyvio issues is something that should have been done before the article was renominated, given that it was brought up by a prior reviewer. Usually, copyvio issues like this would result in a quickfail. As nominator, it's your responsibility to make sure the article is a reasonable shape before nominating it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, look at this - Arlington Cemetery's page on Stevens and this article are practically identical for long passages. Now here, I suspect they borrowed from Wikipedia, but the fact that they did so means we should now avoid citing them to escape WP:CITOGENESIS, so that source will have to be removed and another one found.
 * This Earwig page shows a number of borrowed phrases, such as Eisenhower's opinion, Seaton's back problems, the paragraph about cultivating the city's Republican establishment, etc.
 * This long quote on climate change needs to be significantly shortened.
 * Borrowed phrase here: "may have enriched a former aide"
 * Looking for more issues. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This paragraph borrows a lot of phrases from the NYTimes story and needs to be rewritten ("ordered Trident and other seafood companies..." etc) —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @AlaskaGal, I also wanted to note that there's nothing wrong with vivid language (or as you put it, "poetic wording"). In fact, I'm explicitly in favor of lively, interesting writing on Wikipedia - it just has to be our own, not borrowed from a newspaper or other source. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thank you so much; I will get right to it. I'll save Arlington for last likely, finding sources is not my strong point either. Thank you! ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 15:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing I think could trip me up is many of the names of the actual bills or the positions he holds get flagged too. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 16:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Same with direct quotes. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 16:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Earwig will flag those, but unless direct quotes are very long, they're not generally an issue. Same with proper names or bills. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks! AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 15:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you are finished making edits and you are confident that there is no copyvio to be found in the article. Given the severity of the issues, it'd be best to have it all fixed within the next couple days, say by the 5th of July. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. I am a bit slow because my health is very poor, hope this isn't an issue ^^ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 21:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a number of copyright issues are still extant, including some I listed above. While I would like to give more time for these issues to be fixed, I really can't, in the interest of fairness. They should have been fixed before the article was nominated again, since issues like this were brought up in the last review. This review should have been a quickfail, both because of copyvio standpoint and unfixed issues from the prior review, but I decided to allow a week to fix the issues quickly. , I strongly urge you to go through the article and its sources carefully and remove all copyvio before you renominate this article. The more GA reviews find issues, the more skeptically any future reviewer will scrutinize the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)