Talk:Texan schooner Invincible/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The article clearly does not meet GA criteria. It has been tagged with the copypaste template after three paragraphs were removed as having been copied from this source. The removal of this material has left the article lacking important information, and it no longer qualifies under the "broadness". This has been chronicled on the article's talk page, and nothing has been done to repair the article in the over-a-week since.

In addition, checking that same source with Duplication detector reveals that there are also some phrases that are closely paraphrased from that same source above, and some very long phrases (17, 24, and 31 words at the longest) were copied from another page at the tshaonline.org page on Jeremiah Brown (source 3).

Given the extensive copyvios, this certainly has no business being a GA—the "respects copyright law" requirement is in tatters, as is the broadness requirement—and I plan to delist this as soon as is feasible. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Agreed. From my measurements, it is still at least 50 percent copy vio. It should be deleted. Prhartcom (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - due to appparent copyright violations this article fails GA criteria 1a. Now that its been hacked to pieces it also fails 3a (broad in coverage) as key information about the topic is missing. Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - the article as it stands could never pass GA; it will need substantial work and to be completely rewritten. Karanacs (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question BlueMoonset how much longer until you delist this? Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggums, the instructions for individual reassessments on WP:GAR include 4. Allow time for other editors to respond. I've notified the various WikiProjects and the original author; my plan is to keep this open for a full week. If in that time no one has stepped up to do the work of bringing this article up to GA quality, I will delist it late on February 3, or soon thereafter. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the original author is indefinitely blocked for repeated copyvios. Karanacs (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to hear, thank-you Karanacs. Prhartcom (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, there is no indication that Argos'Dad, the original author, has ever been blocked on English Wikipedia, much less is blocked now. Where did you get this information? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I didn't do my research well enough. I know that $1LENCE D00600D worked a lot on this article (as User Az81964444) and assumed he was also the original author. $ilence Do600d is the one who is blocked. Karanacs (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Az81964444 had only three edits total, done in the period of a minute, which added some material and then deleted it all again. Total effect on the article: zilch. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment conclusion: delist

It has been a week, and the other source's copyvios remain and the article is less than complete given the previous deletions. As this fails at least two of the GA criteria, I am delisting the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]