Talk:The Abbey, Sutton Courtenay/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 10:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Pleased to pick this up. KJP1 (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment
[edit]- The article is a long way from meeting any one of the GA criteria.
- The article contains copyright violations.
- There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
- The article is unstable.
Earwig is showing a 73.8% match to this, [1], the Abbey's official history on its website. That will need to be addressed before the main review could start. KJP1 (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's down to 47.9%, which is an improvement, but still too high, I think. Earwig shows the areas of close paraphrasing. Are you able to adjust these? KJP1 (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Have checked with my go-to guru on Copyvio, and they are also of the view that the paraphrasing is still too close. Given that it’s 7 days since I opened the review and raised the query, I’m afraid I’m going to close this as a Quick Fail on Copyvio grounds. This is a pity - the nominator has worked hard to produce an impressive article and, as an editor who mainly works on buildings, I know it can sometimes be difficult to avoid closely echoing the sources, particularly in relation to descriptions of structure etc. If this issue can be addressed subsequently, the article has all the hallmarks of a GA, and more. KJP1 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay thanks, I will try work on this.Aivin G. (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Have checked with my go-to guru on Copyvio, and they are also of the view that the paraphrasing is still too close. Given that it’s 7 days since I opened the review and raised the query, I’m afraid I’m going to close this as a Quick Fail on Copyvio grounds. This is a pity - the nominator has worked hard to produce an impressive article and, as an editor who mainly works on buildings, I know it can sometimes be difficult to avoid closely echoing the sources, particularly in relation to descriptions of structure etc. If this issue can be addressed subsequently, the article has all the hallmarks of a GA, and more. KJP1 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Main review
[edit]1. It is well written.
- a (prose):
- b (MoS):
2. It is verifiable with Wikipedia:No original research.
- a (references)
- b (citations to reliable sources)
- c (OR)
- d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations)
3. It is broad in its scope.
- a (major aspects)
- b (focused)
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. 
5. It is stable.
6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
7. Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
