Talk:Mekia Cox/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Notes:

(optional) Getting an exact birth year would be nice. This Zimbio source gives a birthdate of November 18, 1981. This modelling profile claims she is currently 29, which lines up with this.
- Thanks for the sourced info.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(optional) You should consider contacting Mekia Cox's agent to solicit a freely licensed image for use on Wikipedia; often good agents will see this as useful for marketing.
- I have made a request on flickr.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source, except for information supplied directly by the MPAA or WGA. The referenced information here is supplied by fans. It may be useful as a supplementary source but the best source for info like this is official performer credits.
- Until other sources such as NYT and TV.com have more detail, we have to rely on something.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistency: The "Years active: 2005–present" seems to exclude her childhood work on Nickelodeon. Is this intentional?
- It is not clear that any of the mid 1990s work is credited.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead paragraph seems to exhibit some recentism, focusing more on recent roles than on roles for which she is more well-known (particularly since Undercovers is now cancelled). I would consider removing this sentence.
- I think it will be appropriate to remove this sentence when she has a more current major role. In truth that is her most recent notable role and as such should probably remain in the lead for that reason. If she goes on to have any success in the industry that sentence can be removed, but until she has a more recent notable role, I think it should stay.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most seriously: I'm concerned about some close paraphrasing from sources like this. Compare:
"When she was a child, Mekia Cox spent 5 years training with dance teacher Linda Reiger in the U.S. Virgin Islands. At the age of seven, Mekia Cox and her family moved up to Orlando, Florida. In 1989 Mekia Cox was asked to be a part of the Christmas Spectacular show at Disney's Magic Kingdom. Living close to Universal Studios, Mekia Cox also began to appear in numerous Nickelodeon shows like, "My Brother and Me," "Keenan and Kel," and "All That.""

"As a child, Cox spent 5 years training studying dance in the U.S. Virgin Islands before moving with her family to Orlando, Florida at age seven. In 1989 Mekia Cox was invited to participate in the Christmas Spectacular show at Disney's Magic Kingdom. Due to her proximity to Universal Studios, Cox also began to appear as a child actor in numerous Nickelodeon shows such as My Brother and Me, Keenan and Kel, and All That."

Such duplication of style and structure (as well as many of the words) may amount to copyright violation; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Superficially changing phrases like "Living close" to "Due to her proximity" does not avoid this. Instead, it's necessary to rewrite the biography in your own words, ideally based on multiple sources.

I am not sure I get your point. Changing phrases is how one avoids copyright vio.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject my 2 cents, the idea is to avoid creating a "derivative work." For example, if an article has only one source and it covers A,B,C,D and E. The if all that you do is rephrase A,B.C.D and E in the same order, that is a close paraphrase or derivative work because anyone could prove that your article was based on the earlier and very similar work. However, if you have two sources and combined topics from both and changed the order of the presentations, or left some ideas out entirely so that you exericised editorial judgment, then it is an "independent work" that could be defended against a copyright infringement claim. SeeWikipedia:Close paraphrasing Racepacket (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how much I have to reword things, but I have tried to distance the text from the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the current text is still too close to the original source. The issue is that you're still relating the same facts in the same order, without adding anything from other sources, removing or summarizing anything, or reordering anything. I recommend deleting the paragraph, re-reading your sources, and then rewriting it from scratch. Please take another look at this part, and also check other parts of the article for similar issues. Dcoetzee 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm placing this review on hold to give a chance to rewrite the closely paraphrased material. If you have any questions please contact me.
- I removed the copyvio material from the article. This information is important but should be substantially rewritten before being re-added. Additional I'm concerned that there may be close paraphrasing from other sources; the original contributor should conduct a thorough review to find and fix any other problems with close paraphrasing before re-submitting this article for GA. Dcoetzee 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dcoetzee 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]