Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Angevin kings of England/1
GA reassessment
[edit]- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
I have only briefly reviewed the article but I found at least two cases of plagiarism, and several cases of unverified claims, so the article does not meet GA2c and GA2d. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Plagiarism:
- The adjective Angevin is especially used in English history to refer to the kings who were also counts of Anjou...
- "...any of the Plantagenet kings of England, especially those who were also counts of Anjou..." [1] p. 59
- As far as it is known, there was no contemporary name for this assemblage of territories, which were referred to—if at all—by clumsy circumlocutions such as ….
- "...there was, so far as we know, no contemporary name for this assemblage of territories. When anyone wanted to refer to them there were only clumsy circumlocutions available” (Gillingham 2001, p. 2)
Unverified claims
- References 26, 61, 83, and 84 do not verify the relevant texts in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said in the GAN discussion, I do not think a phrase as basic as "were also [job descriptor]" can be considered plagiarism. There's probably one other way to rephrase that at which point it becomes so basic as to not be a copyright issue. Otherwise, I have no comment on the points raised. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no access to the sourcing so I can't fix any ref issues but I attempted to rephrase the second one. Is that satisfactory on that front? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the article needs a comprehensive review taking into account that Norfolkbigfish's relaxed approach towards copyvio is well documented. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to propose we Doug Coldwell him, feel free to take that to ANI, but that's beyond the scope of any one review given he has several. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am close to take them to ANI but instead I give them (again) a last chance. I do not want to get rid of them, but to persuade them to start to improve WP instead of disrupting it with plagiarism, unverified statements and typos. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to propose we Doug Coldwell him, feel free to take that to ANI, but that's beyond the scope of any one review given he has several. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the article needs a comprehensive review taking into account that Norfolkbigfish's relaxed approach towards copyvio is well documented. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no access to the sourcing so I can't fix any ref issues but I attempted to rephrase the second one. Is that satisfactory on that front? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)