Talk:Empire Express

Is Blue Rectangle a reliable source?

Is the website bluerectangle.com a reliable source per WP:RS. I repaired the dead link for Empire Express#cite_note-4, but the page appears to be a user review. If this is the case, it would not be acceptable as a reliable source per WP:UGC. Is anyone able to provide more information about this review? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix Marchjuly. Blue Rectangle's FAQ is archived here, confirming that the reviews are user generated (obviously a noted literary critic could just happen to have been the person who provided this particular review on their own time, but it's not feasible for us to operate on such possibilities when all we have is negative evidence).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on that Fuhghettaboutit. The sentence being supported by that citation seems more like a plot recap then an interpretation/evaluation so I'm not sure what to do with the source. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it, an unreliable source should always be removed, even if the content it is purportedly used to verify is uncontroversial; it's worse than no source because it gives an imprimatur of it being properly verified when we define such sources as generally incapable of serving that function reliably. In other words, unless you challenge the content as well (WP:BURDEN), you can remove the source and leave the content to be verified by something better (of course, finding a better source and using that is welcome). In this case though, the book itself is a primary source for its content/plot. This is a sort of exception we have carved out because of the nature of things like films and books. See, e.g., MOS:PLOT.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that think the source should go. I just wasn't sure if a {{citation needed}} should be added since it is just a plot summary. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)