Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kill the Irishman/1

Kill the Irishman

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: I have TNTed the inaccuracies section; as this seemed to be the only outstanding complaint after Wugapodes' response, I am closing as keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2015. Uses many unreliable sources and some parts aren’t formatted correctly. There are also citations in the lede that should be moved into the body. Spinixster (chat!) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comment on the specifics of this article, but I want to note that citations in the lead are explicitly not prohibited by policy, and their use must be determined on a case-by-case basis; in general I would defer to the wishes of the major contributor, other things being equal. Citations in the lead are most certainly not a reason to delist a GA. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 Yes, per WP:CITELEAD, redundant citations in the lede can be put in the body instead. Many of the citations are already cited in the body, so there’s no point in citing it in the lede, too. Of course, this does not do anything to the GA, just something I’d like to point out. Spinixster (chat!) 02:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They can be, but aren't required to be; you're expressing personal preference (which you're entitled to) and framing it as policy (which it isn't). CITEKILL can be a problem, but that's not lead-specific. The rest of the citation concern isn't a GAR issue. The other issues you've raised are, so I suggest focusing on those. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 As I said, I just pointed it out. I didn't say it was necessarily an issue. Spinixster (chat!) 01:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was the person who originally reviewed (and failed) this article in 2015. I don't mean this as a disparaging remark to the primary editor, as it's clear a lot of work has gone into fleshing this out, but I genuinely think it's in worse shape now than it was then. Despite the welcome addition of more sources and information along with a trimmed down plot section, I agree with Spinixster that many of those sources are unreliable. The article also has numerous grammar issues, some questionable structuring decisions, and redundancies (particularly in the "Historical Inaccuracies" section). This would need a significant overhaul to even keep C-class status, so unless someone is willing to do that, I'm very much in agreement that this should have its GA status removed. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 04:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issues being raised so far are incredibly vague and unhelpful. The goal of a reassessment is to improve an article, and it's difficult to do that if problems aren't laid out with specificity and reference to the GA criteria. some parts aren’t formatted correctly Which parts? What GA criteria specifically are at issue? Looking at the article nothing seems broken and it seems to comply with criterion 1b. Uses many unreliable sources Which sources are unreliable? Reliability is related to the claim being supported, so what claims are the sources supporting? Since nothing specific has been pointed out, I took time and went through every citation in the article:
1. The most used citation is cited to a 50-year-old newspaper of record.
2. There's a reference to Box Office Mojo which is routinely used by film articles and from a search of RSN doesn't seem to be considered unreliable.
3. The name of the director is cited to an interview with that director saying that he is the director.
4. A citation to the book the movie is adapted from
5. Variety Magazine
6. The Hollywood Reporter
7. Unreliable, but it doesn't seem necessary to support the sentence given the other citation for the sentence. It claims to be a government document so the original or more reliable source can likely be found
8. An archival copy of a newspaper
9. Unreliable, only used in the lead to support who attended the premiere
10. Not sure if this is a fan site or the actors official site? I lean towards fan site so probably unreliable. Only used in lead to support who attended the premiere
11. Seems like a normal media site
12. Rotten Tomatoes
13. Seems like a normal media site
14. AVClub
15. LA Times
16. The Numbers
17. An interview cited to support the interviewee's statements
18. An interview with the producer, though the claims it supports could be attributed in text to the interviewee to make that clearer
19. An interview with a cast member, I didn't go through all the citations but seems to mostly be about how the film was made
20. An interview with a cast member
21. An industry magazine for screenwriters
22. The Hollywood Reporter
23. The Hollywood Reporter
24. A local newspaper in Michigan talking about how the Michigan government subsidized its production
25. Metacritic
26. SF Chronicle
27. Huffington Post (non-politics)
28. A blog which seems to be from a non-notable critic. It supports a pull quote that could probably just be removed in favor of the others around it
29. LA Weekly
30. Entertainment Weekly
31. The Plain Dealer, a regional newspaper for Ohio
32. The Hollywood Reporter
33. The Numbers
34. A citation to "tunes.zone" which is dead and from the name alone I'm suspicious of. It is a source for the soundtrack which is also just available in the movie's credits
35. A blog sourcing a claimed inaccuracy that could probably just be removed or a better source found
36. A blog, same reasoning as above
37. The book the film was adapted from
38. The Plain Dealer
39. An interview with the director

So of the 39 sources, at most 7 are to plainly unreliable sources (7, 9, 10, 28, 34, 35, 36), and they don't support any particularly important information which can't simply be cut. Having gone through every source and looked at most of the claims they are supporting, I'm not seeing a problem that needs a GAR to resolve. Am I missing something? Just cut those sentences, maybe find a better source and it should comply with 2b after only like a few minutes of work. numerous grammar issues Where? What kind? I just skimmed it and it seemed fine. some questionable structuring decisions What structuring decisions? What makes them questionable? The article seems to comply with criterion 1b's layout requirement, so I need more specificity to understand what makes this a GAR issue. redundancies (particularly in the "Historical Inaccuracies" section) this is specific and actionable. These redundancies would probably be fixed by simply cutting the claims cited to unreliable sources or even just cutting that whole section. — Wug·a·po·des 00:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was wrong, but @Sock Do you have anything to say about this? Spinixster (chat!) 01:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wugapodes' points about the article and criticisms of my response are entirely valid. I was wrong to give my two cents on a GAR without familiarizing myself with the process more thoroughly or providing exclusively actionable feedback, and I sincerely appreciate the callout. I'll be taking a closer look at this article with their points in mind in the next little bit and provide something a bit more productive to the discussion. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 12:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.