Wikipedia:Peer review/Bigfoot/archive1

Bigfoot

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in nominating this article to reach Good Article and/or Featured Article status, as the article has made a tremendous amount of progress since its previous nomination in 2006.

Thanks, TNstingray (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

"Wallace was inspired by another hoaxer, Rant Mullens, who revealed information about his hoaxes in 1982." Needs a citation
"both within the range of anecdotal Bigfoot reports." Needs a citation
"The consensus view is that G. blacki was quadrupedal, as its enormous mass would have made it difficult for it to adopt a bipedal gait." Needs a citation.
"—despite the fact that fossils of Paranthropus are found only in Africa." Needs a citation.
"One study was conducted by John Napier and published in his book Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality in 1973.[137][better source needed]" This needs to be resolved.
Ref 71, 148: History.com is not a reliable source, per WP:RS/P
Ref 224: International Business Times is not considered a reliable source, per WP:IBTIMES
Ref 232: Why is Brave Wilderness a reliable source?

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.

Done Moved this sentence to the second paragraph, where the sourcing and details of Mullens' hoaxes are located.

2.

Comment: Tentatively removed this line as a violation of WP:SYNTH.

3.

Done Added a citation specifying consensus regarding G. blacki's gait.

4.

Done Added a citation specifying Paranthropus' geographic range.

5.

Comment: "Better source needed" tag was removed, as the citation is referencing Napier's book. Additional sourcing is needed to address the scientific response to Napier in order to avoid violating WP:UNDUE.

6-8.

Not done yet.

Thank you for your initial round of comments. TNstingray (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer

I don't have time for a full review, but the refs in the lead should be removed/moved to the body of the article per MOS:LEADCITE. Hope to see this article eventually reach FAC. Good luck! -- ZooBlazer 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The citation section of the lead states "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." This subject has proven to be incredibly controversial, perhaps unsurprisingly. Every assertion needs to be heavily cited to avoid the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues. There are several Wikipedia:Fringe theories that have challenged many points, and the citation heavy lead is a result of this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]