Talk:FCC Open Internet Order 2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee FCC 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 are 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.
July 27, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Government / Public policy (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Public Policy.
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States public policy articles 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 19:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)