Jump to content

Talk:Carolina (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 01:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@Dora the Axe-plorer: Hi! Looking forward to work with you. Have a nice day. ℛonherry 05:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yes, that blogs copies prose from Wikipedia for all of their articles. ℛonherry 05:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]