G'day, nice work with this article. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to complete the GA review, but one suggestion I have is to expand the section on ships, as it seems quite light on the details. Is there any more that could be said about the topic. For instance, what were they used for, how long were they, how much did they displace, how were they constructed etc? Anyway, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:GAR coordinators: This article does not meet GA standards because of issues with sourcing as well as plagiarism.
- Large amounts of the text are based on Osprey's "Bronze Age Greek Warrior" which was referred to as "garbage" and a "source of misinformation" in this article by someone who wrote a recent PhD on Ancient Greek military history.
- The article text does not accurately reflect the cited source. I've fixed the instances I found, but there are surely more.
- Other text is plagiarized. To give just one example, the article says
Boar's tusk helmets consisted of a felt-lined leather cap, with several rows of cut boar's tusk sewn onto it.
where the source says It consisted of a felt-lined leather cap, with several rows of cut boar’s tusk sewn onto it.
So I think this is clearly not a GA. Botterweg14 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is plagiarism, please remove it without feeling the need to wait for a GAR. Unfortunately it appears that text was in the originally GANned version in 2016. CMD (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the original nominator is part of a sockfarm with POV issues, and so is not going to be able to contribute. I will open the GAR. CMD (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst plagiarism shouldn't be in a GA, it also shouldn't be in any article. Removing the tag on the article without removing the content is a bit pointless. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now removed all the plagiarism that I was able to find with the sources that I have access to. But I want to emphasize that there are systematic issues with the article that I at least am not going to be able to address any time soon. Botterweg14 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's fine. I've seen people nominate something for GAR before saying it's a copyvio, but not solve that, which is a bit pointless. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, here's a follow-up question since I've never dealt with GA-related issues before. I'm part way through an (offline) rewrite of Attarsiya, another GA with similar issues. I'm fairly confident that I can bring it up to GA-quality since the issues there are less severe and it's on a topic where I have more background and interest. Should I list that article for GAR or just go ahead with the rewrite? Botterweg14 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer is that we should always push for the article to be improved. If you can improve an article, you don't need to interact with the GAR process at all. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Military of Mycenaean Greece
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result: Significant sourcing issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Widespread poor source use in this article, including the use of likely unreliable sources, text not being supported by their cited sources, and direct plagiarism, thus failing to meet GA2. (Thanks to Botterweg14 for noticing.) CMD (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist unless someone volunteers to rewrite the article from the ground up. While we shouldn't necessarily trust every scholar ragging on other scholars, the linked article on the talk page in Ancient History calling the book that is the article's main source "garbage" and written by non-scholars is rather damning. Even setting aside plagiarism / close paraphrasing, unreliable sources is a deal-killer. SnowFire (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding to this, I have a strong suspicion that some of the remaining text is plagiarized from the Osprey book. So fixing the article will require much more than simply checking the information against higher quality sources. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
