Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SweeTango/1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
As per Doug Caldwell CCI investigation. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Lee, I was browsing the article the other day from (yes) my hair app't with my iPad, and found copyvio. But didn't write it down because, wet hair :) I can go back and search again if need be, but everything needs to be re-checked. If you can't find it, I'll look again. The article is worthy of a save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please see also my comments at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Automatic scorer/1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Besides the normal issues, the single quotes around the types of apples is a big MOS problem --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, I dunno about "big", but yeah, they shouldn't be there. I'll have a good look later - there's a link flagged up by earwig, but it must be a newly added item to Earwig as I didn't see it when I did the review, nor when I said I'd open a GAR. I think it'd be easy enough to fix as it can be reworded easy enough I think. I've been a little bit quiet the last month or so with some off-wiki work, so I'll give this my full attention when I get half hour. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Similarly, I won't be able to revisit probably for a few days, but will re-locate the issue as soon as I have a free block of time to dig in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
First copyvio fixed (every source needs to be reviewed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
First example of source-to-text integrity (entire article needs checking). DC was quite fond of "firsts":
- ... was released in 2006 and officially available to the public in 2007. The apple first sold in eastern United States in 2009.
Source doesn't support "first", and says "will be" sold in the fall ... how do we know it was ? And that's an old source; when did it become available actually? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
First example of failed verification (extending a general statement made in the source to the Sweetango):
- The apple variety 'Minneiska' was intentionally bred and selected for its combination of 20 fruit characteristic traits.
Entire article needs to be checked for same, which is characteristic of problems found in other articles.
These are samples only. My suggestion is to delist, patch up the article, and re-submit to GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. That's fine. I don't think it's super eggregious, if you changed to not comment about it being sold first in the US and the second piece is more puff than anything. I don't think it is too difficult to fix up, but I'm not in the position to make the necessary changes (maybe another time). It's a bit of a shame, as the copyvio issues are much less obvious than other articles in the list. When I get 20 free I'll see if I can fix the puff, but we do need to chop up some of the actual copyright violations (or close paraphrasing at least). I'll desist for now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)