Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/February 2023/reviewer list

Banned/indeffed
Sandy, the note says that banned/indeffed users have been removed. Has this data cleaning been done yet? I have a script that formats the usernames of blocked users, and it's showing the following:
 * CommanderWaterford is indeffed. Community block per AN/I consensus.
 * Guitarist28 - checkuser block almost 3 years ago
 * No Great Shaker - WP:3X after repeated socking
 * PythonSwarm - checkuser block a couple years ago
 * Right Cite - blocked as a sock of Cirt

I'd support removing these from the list as well. Hog Farm Talk 02:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I only removed two (Eric Corbett and the Aussie Article Writer) that I found when trying to sort the duplicates. Thanks so much for this; I am rumdummy tired as all heck. And I went through all the GARs I could find, and added in two original GA reviewers of now  delisted GA (Sammi Brie and Shushugah). I'll delete these five new ones now. Whole lotta socking in this GA list I guess ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

William Austin Burt (Doug Caldwell)
I see that I was the GA reviewer on William Austin Burt. I just now ran Earwig's Copyvio detector on the article. It shows there is only a 3.8% chance of copyvio. 1 That that 3.8% is based solely on the title of a source. Hope that takes care of this one. — Maile (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, ; sorry to say that no, Earwig does nothing to detect DC copyvio and William Austin Burt has not yet been cleared at Contributor copyright investigations/20210315, because clearing it requires manual examination of almost every single source. Earwig is ineffective (does next to nothing) to detect any copyright issues of the close paraphrasing type, or copyvio from sources that it can't read like newspapers.com ... unfortunately most of the sources used at the Burt article are of the type that Earwig can't look at, and even when Earwig can look at a source, it rarely picks up close paraphrasing.  It is unfortunate that few reviewers in our content review processes understand this, and think an article is OK when it clears Earwig. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is probably part of the reason DC was able to get over 500 DYKs even though most of them have either copyvio or misrepresent the sources; content review process reviewers are not/were not examining sources and watching for copyvio or source-to-text integrity issues (original research, failed verification and the like). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear. I'm starting to understand more of the DC problem.— Maile (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's as bad as it gets :) If you want to participate in the ongoing cleanup, join in at the talk page of WP:DCGAR.  This page was only used as a list for notifying reviewers of the mass delisting. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)