Talk:I Am... (Beyoncé tour)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The 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)