Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mishmar HaEmek/1

Mishmar HaEmek

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

Result: Delisted This has been open long enough. I know I was the original reviewer so you can call it me revoking my pass if you want. Copyright concerns that have not been addressed after five months. AIRcorn (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opening this GAR due to issues with close paraphrasing and sourcing. See some examples in the DYK nom. Some of the issues have been fixed, but given the extent I think a GAR is warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from reviewer Looks like I dropped the ball on this one. I find it particularly worrying that the lead was copied as during the review I asked for it to be expanded and it is relatively easy to do so from the actual article itself. I am more than experienced as a reviewers and should have picked this up myself. Apologies for inconveniencing everyone. AIRcorn (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the current copyvio tool result. AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I (the original GA nominater) will be home only in two weeks. So either someone take upon himself to fix the issue, or just remove the GA status until I'll have a computer.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: Do you have time to have a look at this? TheDragonFire (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be home next friday. Until then I am available through the phone app.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-delisting discussion

Aircorn, I've fixed the copyvio problems as soon as I got my computer back in 22 December 2017. The users who started this GAR have abandoned it one by one. This GAR was posted, I responded by fixing the problem, which was followed by five months of silence and now the GA status was removed... Is there still an issue here that you need to delist the article?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: well?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I delisted the article because there was no response here from you except to say that you would get around to it. I asked at multiple venues to try and get a close, but again not much happened. I am a little annoyed that you inserted copy violations in the first place, and even more annoyed that I didn't realise it. If someone else wants to overturn this close I have no issues. Maybe ask @Nikkimaria: if they are happy with the current version or ping @TheDragonFire and Fish and karate: as they have shown some interest in closing. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: No one abandoned this review, in fact we were waiting for you as requested. There may have been a misunderstanding about the copyright issues at the time of Aircorn's close, but this is understandable given the lack of additional evidence presented here. Nikkimaria's comment on the DYK nomination indicates that sourcing issues remain after your 22 December 2017 edits and as such I endorse Aircorn's closure for the time being. If you have time to work on the article, please review the comments on the DYK nomination and make an new GA nomination. This whole thing is unfortunate, but please remember we're all here trying to improve the encyclopaedia. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]