Wikipedia:Peer review/Narwhal/archive4

Narwhal

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'm looking for a pre-FAC source review. The last 2 nominations were archived for sourcing problems so I need to know where the article's source-to-text integrity is at. I've fixed some issues but I first want to make sure before re-nominating. Pinging @FAC coordinators: @RoySmith, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Generalissima: -- who might be interested.

Thanks, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine XI, speaking plainly, you shouldn't "need to know where the article's source-to-text integrity is at". You should know yourself. You should review every single statement and double-check that it corresponds to the cited reference. This should not be anyone else's problem to fix, certainly not peer review, because source reviewing is already a thankless job. The responsibility is yours here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I did, but I don't want to be questioned about sourcing issues by reviewers in the next nomination. In the event that this spot check is successful, there won't be any problems with the 5th nom. Using this website, I generated random numbers, and the results were 3, 4, 12, 21, 24, 31, 43, 45, 55, 59, 67, 76, 77, 80, 85, 95, 96, 103, 110, and 113, for potential reviewers to check. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A peer review spot check doesn't clear a nomination from needing one at FAC. They are separate processes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? If the source review passes in PR, will it count as an automatic pass for when it reaches FAC? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. What DWF said. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good way to do this last-resort source spotcheck is to make a table of every sentence in the article, and the citations supporting each bit of each sentence. If you do that properly, it means you have absolute source-text integrity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's crazy, but I don't think I'll be up for the tusk (pun intended). I'll just wait here for someone to spot-check. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 I've been (half-heartedly) working on a tool to help with that. There's a POC running at https://wikirefs.toolforge.org/. For this article, you can go to https://wikirefs.toolforge.org/show?page_title=narwhal RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: No one is willing to undertake a source review as it has been more than ten days. I'm going to close this peer review and give myself a decade before I submit this article for FAC consideration once more. I'll be reading the literature throughout that period to look for fresh, updated, and better information. The mentor program didn't work for me, despite my best efforts during this terrible FAC experience. It's a shame to see the FAC protocols fail newcomers like myself and instead prioritize the more experienced veterans. To improve this experience for future arrivals, something has to be changed, particularly the "To see why this article failed, click this archive" in the article milestones. It's not all bad, some reviewers like UndercoverClassicist and Jens Lallensack have been helpful, and I thank them for it. Oh well, I guess that's all I have to say, see you in 10 years. FAC co-ordinators it's been pleasure working for you. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]