Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/I Not Stupid/1
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 • • GAN review not found
- Result: kept Having followed the discussions here it appears that most defects have been addressed. One editor is bothered by the lack of URLs for citations obtained from Factiva. Other editors agree that the lack of URLs is not a ground for delisting. Therefore, keep.Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC).
This Article passed GAN in 2007 and by the looks of the article as it is, it shouldnt have. Note: there is one outstanding orange tag. The lead does not give an overview of everything. For example, the lead does not talk about the budget, nor does it mention the background (i.e. inspiration). The article cites many unreliable sources, namely IMDb. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Review sites cited also look unreliable. And forums like this? no no. Channel NewsAsia is not a print source, so it should be reasonable to request for online links to be provided, per verifiability guidelines. I will add more after another thorough checking, thank you. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- IMDB was considered reliable back then. Since the reliability standards have changed, I have replaced all IMDB references with more reliable alternatives. The reference to a Thai-language forum was added by another editor and I have removed it. Several references to dead links have also been eliminated. Would you like to help find reviews from more reliable sources? Whether the lead section needs to mention budget and inspiration is debatable. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your efforts are appreciated... Albeit I still have some things to point out: 1) Where's the URL for references #15 ("Britons get a taste of Singapore culture in I Not Stupid show", Channel NewsAsia, 2005-04-06.), #19 ("Jack Neo honoured with National Day awards". Channel NewsAsia. 9 August 2004.) #20 ("Dick Lee, Jack Neo among this year's Cultural Medallion recipients", Channel NewsAsia, 21 October 2005.) and #21 ("No streaming, no stigma", Channel NewsAsia, 29 September 2006.)?? Channel NewsAsia is NOT a newspaper. It is not an offline source, so a decent URL is required per WP:V. 2) And perhaps, just perhaps, you could provide a gbook link for ref #1 (the book) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such requirement. The CNA articles were obtained through Factiva. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thus, you should be citing Factiva as a middleman for CNA. And it would be appreciated if you could provide a convenience link. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could not find any convenience links. Would appreciate another opinion on the requirement to cite Factiva. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- You could try the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Note that the citations are only needed if they fall under 2b. AIRcorn (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Aircorn, but I already obtained the articles through a friend with Factiva access. The issue is that Bonkers claim that citations need to mention Factiva and include convenience links, but I believe this is not part of the GA criteria. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Verification IS. When citing online sources, a URL should be included. These are not sources that can be verified offline. This is not just GA criteria... It's basic criteria. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Articles obtained through Factiva are not considered online sources. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong... Currently you're saying you got a Channel News Asia article from Factiva... To claim that an article from Channel News Asia is NOT online is ridiculous. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Articles obtained through Factiva are not considered online sources. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Verification IS. When citing online sources, a URL should be included. These are not sources that can be verified offline. This is not just GA criteria... It's basic criteria. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Aircorn, but I already obtained the articles through a friend with Factiva access. The issue is that Bonkers claim that citations need to mention Factiva and include convenience links, but I believe this is not part of the GA criteria. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- You could try the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Note that the citations are only needed if they fall under 2b. AIRcorn (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Could not find any convenience links. Would appreciate another opinion on the requirement to cite Factiva. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thus, you should be citing Factiva as a middleman for CNA. And it would be appreciated if you could provide a convenience link. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such requirement. The CNA articles were obtained through Factiva. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your efforts are appreciated... Albeit I still have some things to point out: 1) Where's the URL for references #15 ("Britons get a taste of Singapore culture in I Not Stupid show", Channel NewsAsia, 2005-04-06.), #19 ("Jack Neo honoured with National Day awards". Channel NewsAsia. 9 August 2004.) #20 ("Dick Lee, Jack Neo among this year's Cultural Medallion recipients", Channel NewsAsia, 21 October 2005.) and #21 ("No streaming, no stigma", Channel NewsAsia, 29 September 2006.)?? Channel NewsAsia is NOT a newspaper. It is not an offline source, so a decent URL is required per WP:V. 2) And perhaps, just perhaps, you could provide a gbook link for ref #1 (the book) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh wait... Yes! "Articles obtained through Factiva are not considered online sources".... So I'm now guessing that you didn't retrieve these online Channel NewsAsia sources from Factiva. Am I right to say that? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 18#Criterion 2 and hurricane GA passes and Talk:Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002)/GA2 seem to raise a similar issue. The general consensus then was that to satisfy criterion 2 the reviewer needs just enough information to be able to find the source if they have the appropriate resources. Anything extra is a bonus (although note that recently it was decided that bare urls were not considered verifiable due to link rot). Is there enough information presented so that someone with factiva can find the article? If there is then it is probably alright. If Bonkers has a concern about whether some information is incorrect then maybe you could email him the source. AIRcorn (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Article heading, newspaper name and date should be sufficient for a Factiva user to find the article. Bonkers seems to not understand how newspaper databases work. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- I do understand.... But how is Channel NewsAsia a newspaper???? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 23:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Although Channel NewsAsia is not a newspaper, its articles are still indexed in newspaper databases like Factiva. The information provided in the citations is sufficient for anyone with Factiva access to find the articles in Factiva. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I do understand.... But how is Channel NewsAsia a newspaper???? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 23:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Article heading, newspaper name and date should be sufficient for a Factiva user to find the article. Bonkers seems to not understand how newspaper databases work. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 18#Criterion 2 and hurricane GA passes and Talk:Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002)/GA2 seem to raise a similar issue. The general consensus then was that to satisfy criterion 2 the reviewer needs just enough information to be able to find the source if they have the appropriate resources. Anything extra is a bonus (although note that recently it was decided that bare urls were not considered verifiable due to link rot). Is there enough information presented so that someone with factiva can find the article? If there is then it is probably alright. If Bonkers has a concern about whether some information is incorrect then maybe you could email him the source. AIRcorn (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Not a die-die requirement, but it would be much better if a convenience link were to be provided. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Then help find one? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Update: See Wikipedia:CITE#Webpages. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment, leaning keep. It's difficult for me to tell from the above discussion where this stands now. Are there any concerns here beyond lack of URLs for ChannelNewsAsia sources available through Factiva? That in itself is clearly not a reason for de-listing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Khazar2. The citations do not appear to violate the GA criteria. If there are no other issues, then GA status should be retained. Edge3 (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - The only statement supported by the CNA source is about a screening location, hardly contentious. Therefore verification is not necessary. Compared with most film GAs, the lede of this article is rather short, which might be an issue.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2013 (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.