Talk:Carolina (Taylor Swift song)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 01:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dora the Axe-plorer: 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)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- 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)
- Pass/Fail: