Talk:Federal Communications Commission Open Internet Order (2010)

Federal Communications Commission Open Internet Order (2010) was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 27, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Internet High‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:FCC Open Internet Order 2010/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lihaas (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I havent quite read more than the lead (mostly b/c im no t adept at these reviews just yet, but the tag on the top is going to be the big hindrance to an assessment. First things first is to work to getting rid of all tags (big or small).Lihaas (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to finish this review? Tags seem addressed the day this was noted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:FCC Open Internet Order 2010/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 17:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this article does not pass our GA requirements. There are several reasons for this. It overuses lists, instead of using prose. It does not offer sufficient background, nor does it link to articles (like Federal Communications Commission) which could provide background. But most importantly, large sections of the prose has been plagiarized from http://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/index.php?blog&action=view&post_id=48

When all these problems have been resolved, I would recommend nominating this article for peer review, and then trying a GA nomination when that process is complete.

Can you indicate the exact sections of this article that have been plagiarised? I went to the website mentioned, and I don't see anything that was copied. --John rb11 (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Let's discuss it on the article talk page, rather than here. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible plagiarism[edit]

I was asked about possible plagiarism between this article and this political source. This duplication report shows most of the duplicated content. Essentially the background and details sections have the same wording, just made into lists. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism Source[edit]

I noticed that the source of the alleged plagiarism was posted on July 17th 2011. However, according to the history of this wikipedia article, this page was written in May. Therefore, it could not have plagiarized information from the website in question. I believe this is a relevant observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John rb11 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FCC Open Internet Order 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]