Talk:Texan schooner Independence/GA1
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Copyright violations that have stood for three years now. Was going to try and fix them, but realised the lead contains lots of information not found within the articles body. There may be more, but the tag alone is enough to delist it. If that is fixed and the lead sorted I will review the article closer. AIRcorn (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: If you want to comment. AIRcorn (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: Per the Paraphrasing link, I think the tag may be incorrect, as the link only points out several instances (22 total, but many are phrases involving referencing rather than plain text) where phrases are similar, in most cases unavoidable. Such as "the united states revenue cutter ingham", "texas governor henry smith", "hawkins died of smallpox", etc. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I will ask Moonriddengirl and BlueMoonset to comment as they found and tagged it first up. It is possible that it has been fixed. That may explain why the lead contains unique information (it being removed from the body). AIRcorn (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Aircorn, Iazyges, the tag was certainly correct when I placed it over three years ago, and was still correct when this reassessment was opened: when I was pinged on March 26, the infringing material was still there, which is why I didn't comment at the time; there was no reason to do so when delisting was clearly appropriate. Looking at the article history, I see that a number of edits made after Aircorn's ping on March 26 have edit summaries indicating that infringing text was being removed, so it's likely based on the Iazyges comment that it is improved in that regard. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Earwig's copyvio tool shows only 16% similarity now (which is quite low, and only due to unavoidable paralels with the source), so I've removed the tag. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Aircorn, Iazyges, the tag was certainly correct when I placed it over three years ago, and was still correct when this reassessment was opened: when I was pinged on March 26, the infringing material was still there, which is why I didn't comment at the time; there was no reason to do so when delisting was clearly appropriate. Looking at the article history, I see that a number of edits made after Aircorn's ping on March 26 have edit summaries indicating that infringing text was being removed, so it's likely based on the Iazyges comment that it is improved in that regard. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I will ask Moonriddengirl and BlueMoonset to comment as they found and tagged it first up. It is possible that it has been fixed. That may explain why the lead contains unique information (it being removed from the body). AIRcorn (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: Per the Paraphrasing link, I think the tag may be incorrect, as the link only points out several instances (22 total, but many are phrases involving referencing rather than plain text) where phrases are similar, in most cases unavoidable. Such as "the united states revenue cutter ingham", "texas governor henry smith", "hawkins died of smallpox", etc. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Okay I am happy with the copyright aspect. However from looking closely at the sources [1][2] it seems all the detail presented in the article does not actually come from them. For example, there is a very detailed description of the Battle of Brazos River, but one source used does not mention it at all and the other does not go into anywhere near the detail. AIRcorn (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Aircorn, perhaps Kablammo, who addressed the copyvio problems, would be willing to continue working on the article to address whatever other issues you find, including the sourcing of statements. If no one deals with them in the next little while, then it probably makes sense to delist the article, but since the goal of reassessment is actually to try to improve the article so it meets the GA criteria again, perhaps it can be achieved if Kablammo can take on the improvements. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delisting Taking into account all the above I still think this needs to be delisted as I am not confident with the sourcing for this article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)