Talk:Pat Condell/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Ok, I made a number of copy-edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • The last sentence of the lead echoes the first sentence of the next section which is OK, but looks clumsy. Consider reorganising the lead bringing the background sentence earlier in the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • ref #6 [1] failed verification; I have flagged another that did not support the statement

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • ref #12 [2] is not a reliable source; ref #20 [3] is not a reliable source; I have flagged other dubious sources and dead links. Please note that youtube, facebook and myspace links should not be in ELs, please read WP:EL. The use of such or similar sites as references si not suitable as these are self published sources.

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I don't think this article meets the GA criteria, too much reliance on self published and unreliable sources. I am not disputing the veracity, but merely following the guidelines. It may be that a shorter version of this article could pass muster. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 6: I have commented it out it as I can't do anything with it on it's own. The quote can be found at [4] anyway.
• Ref 12 was an authors home page, but the guardian source supersedes it, so I've removed it.
• Ref 20 what is wrong with goofigure? I've added a primary source for that quote too.

The question is what makes it a reliable source? WP:BURDEN places the burden of proof on the editor introducing the source. It appears to be a bulletin board or forum, there is no indication of editorial policy or control and no indication that it is regarded as a reliable source by other quality reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• This article should be partially exempt from WP:EL due to Condell's internet presence and it being one of the main channels for his popularity. All links are official sources and are controlled by Condell himself and offers the material which is what originally gained him a lot of attention.

This review isn't a place to argue for changes in Wikipedia guidelines or policies - there are noticeboards for that. I am assessing againts those guidelines and policies in place at present. The subject's own website links to these so that is sufficient in ELs. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• What is wrong with the Quarterly Theatre Review book source? The page number and details have been provided.

The url didn't link to the source. The dead tree reference and the OCLC which I added are sufficient. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the information that uses primary sources are also backed up by other third party sources too. This is to try and keep non-important and trivial information out of the article. All sources have access & published dates provided.--A pinhead (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source - please read WP:RS. Ref #45 is a dead link, liveleak and Myspace are not RS. Actions such as adding together statistics on video web sharing sources is orginal research and synthesis. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Remaining on hold for a further seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• OK, non RS sources remain, also one dead link so not listing at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Video sharing sites are ok to source for views and other data Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Refencing_youtube says so. Adding views together and showing all details like access dates and sums is better than mentioning every view count on every video sharing website. And the dead link is also backed up by two other sources.--A pinhead (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)