Talk:Gray Atkins/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Dr. Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hello. I will begin reviewing this article. 11:00, 2 July 2024 (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, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Main Concern: My main concern essentially echos my concern from Talk:Nish Panesar/GA1. To be clear, if there is clear consensus that the below tabloids are completely reliable for this article, then I will of course change the outcome of my review. But as it stands, I need to abide by current reliable sourcing standards. Sources used:

• Metro (cited about 50 times): Please see Wikipedia:METRO.
• Daily Mirror (cited about 50 times). Please see Wikipedia:DAILYMIRROR
• MyLondon (cited 10+ times): MyLondon is published by the same company as the Daily Mirror (and Daily Star, Daily Express, etc.) and likely inherits the same level of reliability

Wikipedia is not a tabloid and articles should not be based primarily on tabloids. As such, I will need to quick fail this article as it is a long way from meeting the GA criteria. Since I’m new to GA reviews, I will let a more experienced reviewer close this. Best, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)a

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, since this is an article on a fictional character, I think the reliability of the sources depends on what kinds of statements are being made. It's not quite like WP:RSOPINION, but it's a similar idea. If the source is talking about an actual living person or is engaged in a bunch of speculation about an event that hasn't happened yet, I'd agree that isn't reliable. If the article in question is a review of an episode or a critic's opinion about certain fictional characters, that's different. And if the source is used to quote what an actor said in an interview, my sense is that that can be fine, except for sources the community has deprecated for having fabricated information outright.

So, before we close this review as a fail, can you do a deeper source check to see if these sources are used in acceptable ways? (My quick skim does suggest to me that your initial impression is correct and that this is a lot of tabloid-like information.) -- asilvering (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, I can do a more thorough check later on, but a couple of examples of extremely unacceptable sourced content that caught my eye include:

• “The storyline ended in this fashion due to statistics surrounding domestic abuse victims at the time. Refuge reported seeing a "soar" in calls and contacts during the pandemic and Women's Aid reported that over two-thirds of survivors reported their domestic abuse escalating during the COVID-19 lockdowns” —extremely inappropriate to cite stats and data on highly sensitive topics like domestic abuse to tabloids
• “Oates also hoped that the storyline would encourage domestic abuse victims to escape their situation and seek help” - see above
• “Smith was subjected to social media harassment across his entire tenure as Gray and often had abuse shouted at him in the street from viewers who couldn't separate him from his character” —highly contentious BLP material

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

On another note, while the article does have a lot of attributed opinions, I don’t see how such opinions are really WP:DUE given that they are sourced in questionable tabloids. We establish due weight by examining reliable sources on the topic (not unreliable ones). Again, I probably wouldn’t press the issue if we were talking about 3 or 4 citations to tabloids. But a 100+ citations is a bit beyond the pale. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that's the sort of thing we'd want reliable sources for. I had a look at the "storyline ended in this fashion" source and indeed, not very good. @FishLoveHam, if you get back to this in the future, it looks like Digital Spy covers most of the same information in that section, so you can use that source instead. @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, you're clear to close this review whenever you like. -- asilvering (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

As explained in Nish Panesar I'll have to withdraw this nomination. Major apoloies for any inconveniences. FishLoveHam (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.