Talk:Clock Tower II: The Struggle Within/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 23:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC) ===Failed "good article" nomination=== This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 17, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is well written but I have concerns over the gameplay section being plagiarism as Earwig caught it being copied word for word from a YouTube video description. This is the primary reason for the GA nomination failing. [1]

2. Verifiable?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

The article is well written but I have concerns over the gameplay section being plagiarism. This is the primary reason for the GA nomination failing. [2]

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: WTF are you serious? Did you ever consider for a minute that the YouTube description copied the Wikipedia page? I spent a lot of time reading through the manual and writing that section myself. If you took the 30 seconds to see when the video was posted versus the gameplay section being written, you would see the article was written first. If you hadn't quick failed the article, but instead left the nomination open for me to respond to your comments (which every other reviewer has done for me), this misunderstanding could have been easily cleared up. Quick failing is only necessary when articles are substantially underdeveloped in multiple categories. I recommend you stop doing GA reviews until you research how others conduct them to understand the procedure. What a waste of time... TarkusAB^talk 00:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: My sincerest apologies, I am familiar with the practice but somehow that went straight over my head. Thank you for pointing that out. I realize now that I should have put this "on hold" and waited for a response. You have my apologies. I have struck out my decline and accepted. I will definitely learn from this in the future and will not repeat this mistake and be more careful moving forward. Sorry once again for the confusion and frustration caused. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)