Talk:I Am... (Beyoncé tour)/GA1
GA Review
editThe 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: My love is love
I'll be happy to review this article. I've worked with you before, MLIL, and I know how thorough and well-written your articles can be. Could you do me a favor though? Before I begin this review, could you double-check to see if there are any close paraphrasing issues? (You know how picky I am about that.) Once you've looked through, if you feel there aren't any such issues (or if you pre-correct them), let me know and I'll start the review in earnest. Does that work for you? – Quadell (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
My love is love, it has been a week since I discussed the review, above. In the meantime, I have checked for close paraphrasing issues in just the "background" section, and I have already found some problems. The sentence supported by reference #3 reuses the phrases "strictly for the stage" and "sensual, aggressive alter ego" directly from the source, but these should be reworded. A sentence supported by reference #6 reuses "rehearsing and trying to put the set list together" directly from the source. In a more minor case, in reference #7 Beyoncé says "I can make the transition from Beyoncé to Sasha Fierce really fast", and the article talks about making the transition "really fast", a less encyclopedic phrase that shouldn't be copied from the source.
Given these close-paraphrasing problems in just the first section, and considering the systemic close-paraphrasing problems I found in the Heat (perfume) article which you also nominated, I am going to tag the article with {{Close paraphrasing}} and close this GA nomination as "not passing". If you go through the article and thoroughly rewrite all phrases copied from sources (and not just change a word or two, but actually rewrite in your own words), then feel free to renominate the article for GA status. If that happens, I think it will be a strong candidate: it's thorough, well-organized, and sourced throughout. But the CP issues are too important and widespread to continue this review at this time. – Quadell (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)