Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ReCore/1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:59, 26 January 2017

ReCore

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

I would like to request a community reassessment because I have made a huge mistake during the reviewing of the article (along with others): not fact-checking. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What exactly are your concerns User:Gamingforfun365?
At first glance it looks as if the WP article might be a copyvio but I think other sites are mirroring Wikipedia. The Youtube commentary/link I found - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZtAmsiteuw states it was written in October 2016 and the WP article was written before that. Here are the results of the Earwig's Copyvio tool. I'm giving it a readthrough and haven't found anything iffy yet... Shearonink (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot is not a copyvio, there was an edit war over it that resulted in the current text (including a DRN). The primary contributor after that who took it through a Peer Review and then to GAN was @Cognissonance:. I recommend this GAR be closed. A review of the GAR opener's talk page and contributions will show a history of issues with GAN/GAR/FAC. I have every confidence that Cognissonancehas fact checked and met WP:V. -- ferret (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know the background. I didn't think anything was a copyvio either, other sites steal Wikipedia content all the time without the required attribution. Off-topic for this Reassessment but I admit I don't understand why the GAR Nominator is nominating so many articles for the Reassessment process... Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you gotta do, but the sources are good. Cognissonance (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on one of the other nominations, it remains true that a substandard initial GA review was done by the nominator: that's what is said in the nomination here. In effect, the community needs to do the work that wasn't originally done: to check the facts in the article against the sources to confirm their accuracy. To simply assume that no errors were made, as ferret has recommended on all of these reassessment pages, is simply not appropriate. The article will remain a GA unless issues are found and not fixed; I very much doubt that will be the case. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 :::Good to know the background.  I didn't think anything was a copyvio either, other sites steal Wikipedia content all the time without the required attribution.  Off-topic for this Reassessment but I admit I don't understand why the GAR Nominator is nominating so ''many'' articles for the Reassessment process... [[User:Shearonink|Shearonink]] ([[User talk:Shearonink|talk]]) 18:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 Do what you gotta do, but the sources are good. [[User:Cognissonance|Cognissonance]] ([[User talk:Cognissonance|talk]]) 01:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
+:As I said on one of the other nominations, it remains true that a substandard initial GA review was done by the nominator: that's what is said in the nomination here. In effect, the community needs to do the work that wasn't originally done: to check the facts in the article against the sources to confirm their accuracy. To simply assume that no errors were made, as ferret has recommended on all of these reassessment pages, is simply not appropriate. The article will remain a GA unless issues are found and not fixed; I very much doubt that will be the case. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 04:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)