# Talk:Carolina (Taylor Swift song)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 28 October 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Osterhc1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Oliver1445, DreamMoonBlue.
— Assignment last updated by Fursheep98 (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carolina (Taylor Swift song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 01:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer: Hi! Looking forward to work with you. Have a nice day.  ℛonherry☘ 05:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for dropping the message. I should give my initial comments in a day or two :) Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Overall the article is looking really good. There was some minor lang issues that I have fixed. However I ran the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector and it has a 85.5% similarity with this blog wiki. Upon first glance, this is a blog wiki so I could just ignore (right?) but I'll take more time to look into it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
It appears to be a fan website..a blog but not much information about it. One stark difference is that the blog does not cite any sources and it definitely isn't a secondary source. Nothing is verifiable in that blog whereas the article I'm reviewing is well cited and verifiable. There are no other similarities beside that blog and I assume good faith that contributors to the article wrote in their own words (and that blog took a large part of the Wikipedia article) so I am going to pass the nomination. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that blogs copies prose from Wikipedia for all of their articles. ℛonherry☘ 05:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

removed from the "Writing" section: citation to an article of literary criticism on author Jonathan Swift. Proper citation for that sentence (on Swift's inspiration) needed.
-- Castle, Terry J. (2014-06-11), "Why the Houyhnhnms Don't Write: Swift, Satire and the Fear of the Text*", Jonathan Swift, Routledge, pp. 239–254, doi:10.4324/9781315843865-18, ISBN 978-1-315-84386-5, retrieved 2022-09-20{{citation}}:  CS1 maint: url-status (link) Dano67 (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)