Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: BlueMoonset (talk · contribs) 23:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Quickfailing this article per item 6 of WP:WIAGA: The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations.

Back when the article was submitted to AfD, I pointed out that the Reception section, with the exception of a tiny first sentence, was paraphrasing so close as to amount to a copyvio. While the article was closed as "keep", the admin who did so, Mark Arsten, removed the infringing material. Khanassassin, who had made some edits to the section between the time I made my post and Mark made his deletion, promptly restored the material.

When I looked, I found the edits to be minor and hardly affected the infringing text. I therefore removed it again. Three days later, again with only the slightest change, Khanassassin restored the problematic text with the edit summary, "I truly believe it can't get reworded much more. It's like you're trying to reword 'animated television series'...". The sole change was that "Big Picture Show" was changed to "film".

This article badly needs the aid of an editor who knows copyvio and can remove and/or properly paraphrase it, since Khanassassin clearly can't; perhaps the Guild of Copy Editors could help. Or, perhaps, it could use a peer review. It definitely needs something, because it is not eligible as is. Once the issues have been addressed, the nomination will be welcome back at GAN.

On another note, I do wonder whether the article meets the third criterion of Good Articles, that it is broad in its coverage. The Reception section simply deals with ratings: there isn't a single review from a reliable media source. Aside from that, there is a large Plot section, and a Production section. Is that sufficiently broad for GAs? Can they be mostly Plot? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Here you can see that the my and the original text differ quite a bit; How can can I reword "delivery gains" or "chilred 11-4"...? Maybe "up" could be changed to "increased by" or something... --Khanassassin ☪ 14:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, summarize! One short sentence, max, is all you need. I compared them, and it's very close paraphrasing by any of the standard definitions: all the gory details are there, written almost identically, and most are unnecessary. I can't make you get a copyeditor—I strongly recommend you ask the guild for help, and point out the problem you've been having in that section—but I can remove the infringing text if you post it. Please ask. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)