| Revision as of 05:03, 11 October 2015 editBlueMoonset (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers72,606 edits QPQ not adequate for DYK purposes← Previous edit |
Revision as of 20:23, 11 October 2015 edit undoLavaBaron (talk | contribs)17,075 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → |
| Line 22: |
Line 22: |
|
|
|
|
|
::*] The supplied QPQ was not adequate, checking only newness, length, and hook citation. Unlike this review, the QPQ fails to mention any of the policy requirements: neutrality, adequate source citations, and copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and also didn't mention checking the supplied quid pro quo review to see whether it had been done properly. If the QPQ is brought up to DYK standard, then this can be approved. ] (]) 05:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
::*] The supplied QPQ was not adequate, checking only newness, length, and hook citation. Unlike this review, the QPQ fails to mention any of the policy requirements: neutrality, adequate source citations, and copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and also didn't mention checking the supplied quid pro quo review to see whether it had been done properly. If the QPQ is brought up to DYK standard, then this can be approved. ] (]) 05:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::BlueMoonset has been engaged in relentless hounding of me across Misplaced Pages since we disagreed on an article I passed for GA-review some months ago. His MO is to appear and make outrageous accusations of plagiarism but, when pressed for examples, finds himself suddenly unable to offer diffs. His tone has become, in the past, so abusive - including declaring I have "competence issues" and repeatedly, unsuccessfully, attempting to have me TBAN'ed from GA, that ] has previously suggested we agree to a mutual IBAN which I have meticulously followed but he has yet been unable to bring himself to join. Since his latest comment is simply a shotgunning of drive-by accusations ("neutrality," "plagiarism," etc.) with no adequate details that would provide opportunity for improvement, I - obviously - am unable to respond. If he would like to, for the first time, provide actual examples of plagiarism I would, of course, correct them. I don't expect that to happen because his job here is done - stamp a question mark here, walk away, and successfully torpedo another of my contributions. ] (]) 20:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
|
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
New and long enough, all paragraphs have inline citations, QPQ review performed, checks for copyvio reveals no problems (e.g. ), content of the hook is backed with an inline citation to a reliable source in the article. North America 01:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The supplied QPQ was not adequate, checking only newness, length, and hook citation. Unlike this review, the QPQ fails to mention any of the policy requirements: neutrality, adequate source citations, and copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and also didn't mention checking the supplied quid pro quo review to see whether it had been done properly. If the QPQ is brought up to DYK standard, then this can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)