Talk:Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002)/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Closing as keep. Has not been edited for over a month. I think it was just forgotten about and the original nominator is not very active at the moment. All the points have been addressed and there have been plenty of comments agreeing that it meets the criteria here and at the WT:GAN talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2

Full citations need to be provided for all sources. "Title." Agency. Date. is not acceptable. This is not verifiable. The elevation did not appear to check these sources for plagiarism, and factual support of the article. I have opened this because the nominator indicated no willingness to address these citation. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following are problematic sources. As I get the time, I will tick them off to progress this GAR.

"Tropical storm hits Macao". Xinhua. 2002-08-05.

Is the citation complete with either page number and clearly identifiable information so I could look in page version? Is there a URL available so I can verify the source exists? Not reviewed yet. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations is not verifiable. I checked Google, Google News, Trove, Xinhua's website, Newsbank. No article by this title was found to exist. Independent verification, using the source provided and going above and beyond to verify its existence proves no. The source needs to be removed and alternative verifiable sources need to be provided to support relevant material. As this was probably an agency article written for republishing, surprised no newspapers in print picked it up for it to ping on searches for them.--LauraHale (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually ive found this article.Jason Rees (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good. then fix the citation for this. If the Lexis Nexis sources are going to be used, then we'll need some one with access to Lexis Nexis to participate in this review who can verify these exist, and fill out the citation completely. Paywall of "Lexis Nexis" doesn't cut it because I've logged into what I can access on Lexis Nexis and I can't find these sources on my version. So yeah, we'll wait for the citation to be changed to include more information or this url before doing the copyright review and the fact review.--LauraHale (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Spotchecked this (found at WP:RX), no issues with accuracy or CP. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a b Ted Anthony (2002-08-06). "Storm hits southern China coast; at least 10 dead, scores of houses damaged". Associated Press.

Is the citation complete with either page number and clearly identifiable information so I could look in page version? Is there a URL available so I can verify the source exists? Not reviewed yet. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The citations is not verifiable. I checked Google, Google News, Trove, Associated Press's website, Newsbank. No article by this title was found to exist. Independent verification, using the source provided and going above and beyond to verify its existence proves no. The source needs to be removed and alternative verifiable sources need to be provided to support relevant material. As this was probably an agency article written for republishing, surprised no newspapers in print picked it up for it to ping on searches for them. --LauraHale (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually ive found this article.Jason Rees (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good. then fix the citation for this. If the Lexis Nexis sources are going to be used, then we'll need some one with access to Lexis Nexis to participate in this review who can verify these exist, and fill out the citation completely. Paywall of "Lexis Nexis" doesn't cut it because I've logged into what I can access on Lexis Nexis and I can't find these sources on my version. So yeah, we'll wait for the citation to be changed to include more information or this url before doing the copyright review and the fact review.--LauraHale (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Spotchecked this (found at WP:RX), no issues with accuracy or CP. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tropical storm kills 9, injures 12". Xinhua. 2002-08-06.

Is the citation complete with either page number and clearly identifiable information so I could look in page version? Is there a URL available so I can verify the source exists? Not reviewed yet. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Free online version exists here. --LauraHale (talk)
Was the text plagiarised to write this? Not reviewed yet. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source support the cited text? Not reviewed yet. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just reviewed, both are fine. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a b Peter Harmsen (2002-08-11). "Dozens killed as freak weather wreaks havoc in China". Agence France-Presse.

Is the citation complete with either page number and clearly identifiable information so I could look in page version? Is there a URL available so I can verify the source exists? Not reviewed yet. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - The citations is not verifiable. I checked Google, Google News, Trove, AFP's website, Newsbank. No article by this title was found to exist. Independent verification, using the source provided and going above and beyond to verify its existence proves no. As this was probably an agency article written for republishing, surprised no newspapers in print picked it up for it to ping on searches for them. The source needs to be removed and alternative verifiable sources need to be provided to support relevant material. --LauraHale (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tropical storm claims 10 lives, leaves 23 missing". Xinhua. 2002-08-06.

Is the citation complete with either page number and clearly identifiable information so I could look in page version? Is there a URL available so I can verify the source exists? Not reviewed yet. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Xinhua, Trove, Newsbank, Google News, Google do not support this source existing. No newspapers appear to have picked it up. As a previous Xinhua reference exists on their website, it isn't a time frame issue. The existence of this source is not verifiable and alternatives need to be found. --LauraHale (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was the text plagiarised to write this? Not reviewed yet. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source support the cited text? Not reviewed yet. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spotchecked this (found at WP:RX), no issues with accuracy or CP. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Deadly storm rips through coastal China". CNN.com. 2002-08-05.

Is the citation complete with either page number and clearly identifiable information so I could look in page version? Is there a URL available so I can verify the source exists? Not reviewed yet. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiable online here. --LauraHale (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Text does not appear plagiarised. --LauraHale (talk)
- Source supports text: "with Kammuri helping to ease the major drought that has affected Guangdong this year." and " the rainfall from Kammuri helped alleviate drought conditions in the province" --LauraHale (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- automated plagiarism check shows no problems. --LauraHale (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just checked, as well, both are fine. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issue: Source needs to be properly formatted. --LauraHale (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jae-hee (2002-08-07). "Heavy rains wreak havoc in central region; Meteorologists expect up to 300 mm of additional rain in south by today". The Korea Herald.

Is the citation complete with either page number and clearly identifiable information so I could look in page version? Is there a URL available so I can verify the source exists? Not reviewed yet. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - This article was not found on Trove, Google News, Google, Korea Herald's website, Newsbank. The existence of this source cannot be verified. Alternative source needs to be found. --LauraHale (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Spotchecked this (found at WP:RX), no issues with accuracy or CP. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I reviewed the GA, and I'm a bit nonplussed to see a GA review opened within an hour. Furthermore, I think the objections here are somewhat frivolous. I'm confident that the article does, in fact, meet criteria 2 of WIAGA. As to the issues at hand:

I didn't spotcheck the article, no. I often waive spotchecks when dealing with a contributor who has produced large amounts of audited content (as is the case here) since their paraphrasing and accuracy have been checked before. I am willing to do so though, I suppose.
I don't believe that there is a rule that references need to be linked, or easy to find on the web. There is a difference between unverifiable, and not easily verifiable.
While the references weren't formatted in the way I like to format them, I think the title date and agency are basically acceptable for formatting. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just saw the author's comments here, explaining some of the issues with lack of authorname and page number. These are verifiable if you go to a library with LexisNexis, but no hyperlink is available. Please be mindful of FUTON bias in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark, how did you verify the sources in this review? How did you check that they came from Lexis Nexis? Did you check that these supported the sources? Nothing in your review indicates you did and incomplete citations mean it wouldn't have been easy. As I struggled to find these sources, how did you find them? How did you verify these met the criteria? The explanation doesn't work, because no page number and no url and no database means it isn't verifiable. --LauraHale (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I explained above that I AGF'd and did not spotcheck the review. Not every review gets a detailed spotcheck, particularly when dealing with an experienced contributor who has been checked in the past. This is how it's usually handled at FAC, and, I believe, here at GAN. I have no clue why you're insisting on delisting good articles for not having been spotchecked, but it stretches good faith past the breaking point. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not sure that waiving spot checking is a good idea even for experienced contributors. We all make mistakes, it is possible that the information could have been added in by another user and missed by the nominator and if everyone assumes experienced users are spot checked then it is possible they may slip through the cracks. AIRcorn (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think if the view is "Reputation of the contributor means criteria will not be evaluated", we should have an RfC to formalise this as policy. Otherwise, this criteria remains as part of Good Article criteria. Is there a desire for an RfC based on contributor reputation? --LauraHale (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        @Aircorn You may be correct that waiving spotchecks is inadvisable, but delisting articles because they weren't spotchecked seems to be an overreaction. @Laura I did not say that we should throw out a criteria based on the nominator. My comment about about how much effort we should put into spotchecking compliance. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I knew it would be somewhere, see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable mistakes to avoid #3. I don't agree with the substantial proportion part, that would be a nightmare in some articles, but you should probably check a few each time at least. AIRcorn (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I will plan on doing that from now on. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am surprised that this is being subjected to GAR already; most of the concerns the posting editor had have already been addressed, some by the posting editor. This seems a talk page post, or even a WP:SOFIXIT issue. I am also troubled by the assumption that an article for which a link cannot be found therefore *must* be plagiarized. Not sure if that was what the editor actually implied, but it sure sounds that way. Montanabw^(talk) 01:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't WP:SOFIXIT as I cannot verify the sources. They do not appear on Lexis Nexis. Half do not appear elsewhere. There is implication that because a source cannot be found, it MUST be plagiarised. Rather, the implication is: One of the criteria of Good Articles is the information be verifiable and not plagiarised. This cannot be checked if there is no way to verify a source. I'm inclined to believe that no plagiarism has been done based on the other sources, but it still should be checked per Good Article criteria. If you disagree with this criteria, then an RfC can be opened asking for the removal of this criteria. --LauraHale (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've spotcheck six sources, no problems yet. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And now another user has done the same. There are no issues with accuracy or close paraphrasing here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given how quickly and easily Mark was able to have an uninvolved editor find these articles on LexisNexis, I think your WP:V concerns have been strained past their breaking point, Laura. I would hope you have the good grace to withdraw this review. Doubly so given the consensus of editors both here and at WP:GAN who disagree with your arguments. Reso lute 14:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]