Wikipedia talk:Source grading/reviews

Some sites that have had their reference/EL sections graded. Note that this page is not any regular part of using the source grading tools; it's only for demo, reference, and discussion.

Here are some quick shorthand notations for use here only:

biodata

info on author available

wikilike

anything that looks vaguely like open collaborative editing

fansite

a site jointly run/edited by many fans

otaku

a step down from fansite, a site run by one person obsessed with the topic

John Reid

Compass rose -- mapping jargon

Stub, mostly images.

(B) Origins of the Compass Rose

Small company website, specializing in map technology; one author, no biodata; gives 2 print refs, one by U of Chicago; lean toward A.

(A) The Rose of the Winds - An example of a rose with 26 directions.

Small group website; gives image of ref'd item -- A only in this specific connection.

(A) Wind rose

U of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries; one author, no biodata; 6 refs, all print, some available online; lean toward B.

[1]

deadlink, comment out

[2]

Online version of print newspaper, Taipei Times. Not a bad source. However, unacceptable citation. Out of province, fails to claim authority -- worse, labels substantive claim "legend"; comment out both citation and claim

Wolfenstein 3D -- game

No obvious connection between citation and claim. Long article, many claims made.

(B) id's Official Wolfenstein 3D site

Game company site should be authoritative but biased.

(C) Wolfenstein 3D at MobyGames

"Game almanac", wikilike; no refs given; coherent and comprehensive.

(C) Apogee FAQ: Wolfenstein 3D and Spear of Destiny

Otaku; makes a ton of insider claims but author says he has no affiliation; lean toward rm.

(EL only) The DieHard Wolfers forums - The social center of the Wolfenstein 3D community

fansite message board

(EL only) Wolfenstein Mods - At the Mod DB

fansite

(EL only) The Wolfenstein 3D Dome - A fan site

fansite

(EL only) A link to Wolfenstein Trivia

Otaku; highly suspect

Having graded some EL but not others, promoted sources to References section.

Update: Rv myself on the section split. Article does have an extensive Ref section, in nonstandard location, which I completely missed. After resolving inline grading issue, must go back and fix that; also, grade refs in Refs section -- ha!

Update x2: It's worse than I thought. The existing Refs section -- section header References -- does not consist of references at all but influences. I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.

Miles Davis -- artist

(B) Kahn, Ashley. Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece. ISBN 0-306-81067-0 (Da Capo Press, paperback 224 pages, 2001)

Tough, since I don't have the book handy. Ashley Kahn has his own article. A C-grade website interview [3] with Kahn turns up the biodata: VH1 music editor, editor of Rolling Stone: The '70s &c. Basically a freelance writer made good. Kahn makes a lot of claims in the interview but none are sources -- typical. His WP article says he's "critically acclaimed" but there's no source for that claim. Google hits 321 distinct times for the book title. Blog, jerryjazz, amazon, WP. NPR hits on the album first, citing the book; but has no story on the book itself. A lot of otaku sites do praise or at least ref the book. Back to Amazon for reviews (ignoring the peanut gallery). Publishers Weekly: "insightful interpretation". USA Today: "like a good mystery". Booklist (ALA): " Da Capo has been well known as an excellent press..."; "enthusiasm of a jazz fanatic, great tribute, fine book". SF Chron, People, lesser lights. Okay, so the book is reputable.

What about the claim made in the article? How does this match up with the book itself? This is a single-purpose inline cite used to support the claim:

Davis once remarked on this importance of this signature sound, saying, “I prefer a round sound with no attitude in it, like a round voice with not too much tremolo and not too much bass. Just right in the middle. If I can’t get that sound I can’t play anything.”

Unfortunately, Google is no help on duplicating the citation; all the good links seem to be to WP mirrors. So, while the source appears to be good -- quite likely solid A -- the citation itself can't be verified with the tools on my desktop. I can't do any better than a B, on faith -- but of course, as soon as somebody with the actual book in his hands searches through the text for the quote and finds it, he can change that to A, straight ahead.

(C) Intro.de article (in German), translation available at [http://bibbly-o-tek.com/2006/05/30/scritti-politti-quiet-comeback/ bibbly-o-tek

Problem: This source is in German. "Translation available" is not available, deadlink (removed). (It looks like the translation URL is malformed but twiddling with it didn't bring it up, either.) Not only that, I can't seem to run it through Babel Fish. I think the citation sucks but maybe that's just me; perhaps somebody who reads the language may feel different. I can tell just by looking that it seems to be a fansite. However, there may be a print edition so that elevates the citation a bit.

(C) Fodderstompf

At least this ref is straightforward; it gives quotes from the liner notes (to an only tangentially related Public Image Ltd. album) and the quotes back up at least one of the two claims made in the article. Trouble is, the album is named "Album". (Worse lunacy, it's released as "Compact Disc" or "Cassette" on those media. As the article notes, this is cute but derivative of Flipper and Repo Man.) This makes searching for it nasty. PiL does have its own WP article but it's worth noting that it's a post-punk rock band; that doesn't necessarily impair its credibility but its distance from the jazz scene doesn't help. Predictably, one of the two citations in the latter article is our subject; no help. Worse yet, all 4 refs go to the same site. Dead end.

Google hits a surprising 518 unique times -- all blogs, fansites, and similar cruft, though. Amazon has the product but no info on it, certainly no liner note quotes. Frankly, I don't have the patience to third-source this claim, especially when the album, or at least the CD, is commonly available. Easy enough to check the liner notes directly if you have them. I'll let the aggregate weight of 518 no-value hits plus a little AGF push this up to C.

Of course, what the article should do is cite the liner notes directly. As before, anybody with the secondary source in his hand can check and upgrade this. The claim itself may be bogus; perhaps Miles never set foot in the studio or said a word to John Lydon -- but we're not here for that. The article clearly says according to Lydon and that's something we can back up.

This brings us to the print references and maybe I'll take a shot at them after I wrap myself around some fuel. Meantime, you get the idea.