Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Planescape: Torment/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:49, 22 May 2009 [1].
Planescape: Torment[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article has been copyedited, researched, and otherwise nitpicked by many editors and its sources and prose have been run through the gauntlet. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has undergone a recent peer review, where images and references were check along with other things. I think that the image and reference problems should be fixed now; the only exception is RPGwatch, which we feel is reliable since it is an interview with the game's developers and, therefore, is a primary but reliable source for information. We also did some copyediting there. Just let us know if there's anything else that we can do to improve this article! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As was the case during the peer review, there are completely unreferenced paragraphs in Gameplay and Plot. This should be taken care of, although I won't commit to an Oppose; I haven't read the article thoroughly enough that I would be able to support based on that change alone. A good rule to follow: When in doubt, cite absolutely everything that can be cited, and remove everything that can't be. You end up with more concise articles that way, usually, and you get the added bonus of not having to worry about people like me, who take offense at even a single unreferenced paragraph. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly having reliable, inline citations is better, but isn't the game itself a source (although a primary one) for that information? The game contains the information on plot and gameplay. Video game sourcing can be difficult for plot and gameplay because that isn't necessarily what reliable sources focus on (development and reception, mostly), even though it is needed to make a high-quality encyclopedia article. It's kind of like with a book: You'll get some information on the storyline in reliable sources, but unless it is something enormously popular like LOTR or Eragon, the reviews will focus mainly on things like style, how the author wrote it, the book's meaning, etc., and the plot is left to be sourced from the book itself. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly, this is true. But only regarding plot; gameplay sections are specific to video game articles, and a lot of times reviews will discuss gameplay in detail. The standard practice for gameplay sourcing is reviews and the game's manual. Like I said above, the best thing to do is include what you can through citations, and axe the rest. It works for the gameplay section, too. As for plot, the standard practice for video game articles is that when you don't have a secondary source, use the script. This should be fairly easy for the characters section, if any of the editors have the game, as Torment has a character database. The story itself will also need script citations, unless you've got secondary sources. I haven't seen a VG article pass FAC in several years that didn't have plot section citations. On a long past FA (System Shock), I even had to carefully transcript segments of spoken dialogue into script citations. You probably won't have to go that far; I think some fan turned the game's script into an online novel, using all the original dialogue. So if you can track that down, just cite the dialogue as though it's directly from the game, and you're set. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other notes:
- Sorcerer's Place, last time I checked, is not a reliable source. Not sure about Game Chronicles, either.
- You're going to need the CGW review in there. As much print as you can get, in fact. Next Generation Magazine (March 2000), PC Gamer UK, PC Zone ([2]). Might as well throw in incite (Torment's review, in March 2000, is the only one Hahnchen has; you're lucky beyond belief) and some others, while you're at it.
- This may or may not contain useful information for the article: [3]. However, it is a scholarly source talking about a game. Usually, that means there's a way it should be included in the article, so I'll just leave that there for you to pick over. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the notes; I'll work on some of this tonight and tomorrow. Why do you mean by needing the "CGW review in there"? It is cited; and why are more print sources really needed? Certainly they're good, but if we can't access them is their missing a real problem... there are enough reliable reviews online and in the article already, in my opinion. Anyway, thanks for finding that source. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, taking references out is a lost quicker than putting them in, and I need to stop for the day soon. I removed those possibly unreliable sources (I don't think that they really added much to the article anyway, except for a quotation), and will work on adding more cites tomorrow. I'll especially try to work on the gameplay; plot would seem a little less dependant on secondary sources than how the game is played. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the notes; I'll work on some of this tonight and tomorrow. Why do you mean by needing the "CGW review in there"? It is cited; and why are more print sources really needed? Certainly they're good, but if we can't access them is their missing a real problem... there are enough reliable reviews online and in the article already, in my opinion. Anyway, thanks for finding that source. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other notes:
- Admittedly, this is true. But only regarding plot; gameplay sections are specific to video game articles, and a lot of times reviews will discuss gameplay in detail. The standard practice for gameplay sourcing is reviews and the game's manual. Like I said above, the best thing to do is include what you can through citations, and axe the rest. It works for the gameplay section, too. As for plot, the standard practice for video game articles is that when you don't have a secondary source, use the script. This should be fairly easy for the characters section, if any of the editors have the game, as Torment has a character database. The story itself will also need script citations, unless you've got secondary sources. I haven't seen a VG article pass FAC in several years that didn't have plot section citations. On a long past FA (System Shock), I even had to carefully transcript segments of spoken dialogue into script citations. You probably won't have to go that far; I think some fan turned the game's script into an online novel, using all the original dialogue. So if you can track that down, just cite the dialogue as though it's directly from the game, and you're set. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly having reliable, inline citations is better, but isn't the game itself a source (although a primary one) for that information? The game contains the information on plot and gameplay. Video game sourcing can be difficult for plot and gameplay because that isn't necessarily what reliable sources focus on (development and reception, mostly), even though it is needed to make a high-quality encyclopedia article. It's kind of like with a book: You'll get some information on the storyline in reliable sources, but unless it is something enormously popular like LOTR or Eragon, the reviews will focus mainly on things like style, how the author wrote it, the book's meaning, etc., and the plot is left to be sourced from the book itself. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, sounds good. And to clarify my above comment: I saw the CGW award, but not the review (which I'm pretty sure isn't there). As for print sources in general, it's good to have them, even for a game as late as 1999. As the saying goes, just because a site is WP:RS now doesn't mean it was then. Anyway, almost all of the magazines I mentioned can be obtained through WikiProject Video games/Magazines. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a few citations and removed some unsourced material. I'll continue to research and add citations as I see them. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article's looking better, guys. I just added a few {{or}} and {{citation needed}} tags to a paragraph in gameplay, to highlight a few things that need sourcing. I'll try to help you find plot citations, shortly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; I'll try and do some more work on it shortly. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I'll have time to help you further on the plot section; I'm working on my own FAC now, along with two other off-Wikipedia projects with deadlines fast approaching. That fan-made Torment novelization is basically just the entire game's script with a little narration in between. The actual dialogue is unchanged, so as long as you only quote that, it's safe. Unless you plan on playing the game before this FAC ends, I recommend using it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand; thank you for all of your help already. Could you point me to the site where I can find this? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [4]. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I cited another paragraph of the story; I hope to finish it tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The story should be all cited now; what do you think? Is anything missing? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'd say the story section is pretty good now. It could use a copyedit, though; a lot of the article could, now that I look. More critical, currently, is getting some more citations into the characters section. As long as you have the game installed and a save near the end, it'll be easy to get references; there's a journal in the game dedicated to character descriptions. Anything you'd need would probably be in there. As for the rest of the article, it looks pretty good now. My few concerns are mainly the fact that you use primary sources for the fan translations, and the lack of print reviews. The reviews section is enormous and well-written; it just needs one or two more print reviews. Even just the Next Generation one would probably be good enough. That's available through /Magazines, so it shouldn't be a problem. If you can take care of the remaining issues (recap: copyedit, characters section citations, print reviews, fan translations), I'll be willing to support. Sorry for making you jump through so many hoops; Torment is one of my all-time favorite games, so I naturally take an interest in its article's FAC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. I've never actually played the game, so I'll add some refs to the characters section using that same transcript/book thing that I did for the two paragraphs of story. I have also requested a copy edit. I did add in the incite PC Gaming references; I'll try to get some more print sources through /Magazine when I have some time later today or tomorrow. For the fan translations, I'm not sure if there even are sources other than the primary sources for them, and if there are they probably wouldn't be in English (not a real problem to have in the article, but problematic in that I couldn't read them :) ), so I'm not really sure what to do about this. Thanks for all your help and comments! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'd say the story section is pretty good now. It could use a copyedit, though; a lot of the article could, now that I look. More critical, currently, is getting some more citations into the characters section. As long as you have the game installed and a save near the end, it'll be easy to get references; there's a journal in the game dedicated to character descriptions. Anything you'd need would probably be in there. As for the rest of the article, it looks pretty good now. My few concerns are mainly the fact that you use primary sources for the fan translations, and the lack of print reviews. The reviews section is enormous and well-written; it just needs one or two more print reviews. Even just the Next Generation one would probably be good enough. That's available through /Magazines, so it shouldn't be a problem. If you can take care of the remaining issues (recap: copyedit, characters section citations, print reviews, fan translations), I'll be willing to support. Sorry for making you jump through so many hoops; Torment is one of my all-time favorite games, so I naturally take an interest in its article's FAC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The story should be all cited now; what do you think? Is anything missing? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I cited another paragraph of the story; I hope to finish it tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [4]. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand; thank you for all of your help already. Could you point me to the site where I can find this? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I'll have time to help you further on the plot section; I'm working on my own FAC now, along with two other off-Wikipedia projects with deadlines fast approaching. That fan-made Torment novelization is basically just the entire game's script with a little narration in between. The actual dialogue is unchanged, so as long as you only quote that, it's safe. Unless you plan on playing the game before this FAC ends, I recommend using it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; I'll try and do some more work on it shortly. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Okay, I got another print review in thanks to Mitaphane and also added some citations to the characters section. As I mentioned above, I'm really not sure what to do with the fan translations... I doubt that there are many reliable sources that talk about them, so they either need to just use primary sources or they can be removed. I'll give this a full copyedit tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The NextGen reviews takes care of my print reviews concern. As for the fan translations, it might be best to remove them from the article, since there are only primary sources for them. Besides that, it looks good. Except for the sentence about Nordom has no reference and contains original research ("harder to find"). Deal with that and the fan translations, but I'll give this nomination a good-faith support now, and assume you'll take care of those last small issues anyway. Nice work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Tezkag72:
This article is looking good right now; just needs a few things done before I'm comfortable supporting it.
First sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. Is the emphasis on conversation and storyline rather than combat typical for the series? Has it been compared to previous Advanced Dungeons & Dragons games?Second paragraph of Characters: "Morte, a cynical floating skull originally from the Pillar of Skulls in Baator,[21] is introduced at the game's very beginning." Remove the reference as it is unnecessary because it is also used in the next sentence.Same with reference 1 in Audio.I don't think any of the blockquotes in Critical reception are necessary.Why are Critical reception and Awards under the Cultural impact header? The lead says the game has a legacy and a cult following, but this isn't mentioned later. So I guess this is two comments—Either remove the information about the legacy in the lead or discuss it later, and remove the Cultural impact and Critical reception headers and put in a level 2 header called Reception.
Again, fix these issues—or tell me why they don't need to be fixed—and I'll give you my support. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I can fix all of these; thanks for the review. My feeling is that the blockquotes are good because they illustrate reviewer opinion which doesn't quite fit into the rest of the section in any one place... are you saying that the quotes should be removed entirely, or that they should be combined into the rest of the prose? I feel that they add a lot to the section. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Put them in regular quotes in the prose. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than that, I think that I have fixed all of your concerns... could you just take a look at that second paragraph of the lead to make sure that it is worded well? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can fix all of these; thanks for the review. My feeling is that the blockquotes are good because they illustrate reviewer opinion which doesn't quite fit into the rest of the section in any one place... are you saying that the quotes should be removed entirely, or that they should be combined into the rest of the prose? I feel that they add a lot to the section. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; I think the article's in good enough shape by now for my vote. Good work, you three. Tezkag72 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: all the dialogue citations need to be properly formatted using {{cite video game}}. As of now there's no information about at what point in the game the dialogue appears, et al. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment, but there are a lot of video game FAs that don't have information on the point in the game where the dialogue appears... e.g., Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, Final Fantasy X-2, and Chrono Cross. If you just want the citation template so that publisher information is included, I can certainly do that, but why would the point in the game where it appears be needed? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment: Nice article.
- The caption to File:Planescape start-room.jpg has punctuation as if it had two sentences, but it doesn't.
- I have some issues (that are more suggestions) for some formulations:
- "In a piece written some time after its release, ..." – be more precise or remove "some time"
- "The bugs were responsible for causing slowdowns on some computers ..." – text doesn't say "some computers" but describes it as universal, or not?
- "Planescape: Torment won a number of awards after its release. It was given several Editor's Choice awards ..." – vague/redundant, remove the part "won a number of awards after its release" and go right into which it won - by writing about more than one it becomes apparent that it won more than one (also I think games win awards always after their release)
- "It was given several Editor's Choice awards ..." – vague, say how many or remove several, because awards indicates plural already
- "... but several reviewers reported that ..." – vague, and number doesn't really matter and the sources mention this as a common problem, how about "it was reported", or something similar?
- Hekerui (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't quantify how many Editor's Choice awards it received because there are likely some publications we missed that gave it an Editor's Choice award. "Several" works well to indicate that it won them in the several range (hah!). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment—Unfortunately I don't think this article is quite at FA quality yet. I read about a quarter of the way through it but I kept stumbling over issues with the text. This is especially true of the second half of the final paragraph in the Characters section, where I finally gave up trying to read it. Please try to make that coherent and improve the flow. I changed my mind somewhat after reading the remainder of the article. For the most part it is a good read, but has a few issues.I'm not completely happy with the lead. It just doesn't seem engaging and is a tad on the thin side.I'd like to see a sentence added to summarize the 'Characters' section (per WP:LEAD) and make it plain that Nameless One leads a party (rather than this being a single character game). Thanks.
Somewhere in the lead it should make it clear that this is a fantasy setting (in contrast to, say, science fiction)."...combat is not a big part of the game." Having played the game I would disagree with this. The Story section makes it clear to the reader that combat is essential for certain stages of the plot. Instead, I would probably say that combat is a 'secondary element', comparable to puzzle solving.If combat is not a big part of the game, why does it say, "Death of the player character is common due to the nature of The Nameless One". Please clarify.Please try to make the second half of the final paragraph in the Characters section to make it more coherent and improve the flow. This could possibly be accomplished by adding sentences explaining how the characters are met.- It is much better now. Thank you.
The document says that seven other characters can join the Nameless One, but I only see six listed.The Reception section states that, "Reviewers also approved of the protagonist's ability to gain new powers by "remembering" past lives, which allows The Nameless One to switch his class whenever the player wishes." This somewhat contradicts the earlier statement that, "The Nameless One... may later change his character class... after finding corresponding tutors." I think this topic of remembering past lives needs better coverage; possibly in the Gameplay section. Please clarify this topic in the article.- This isn't a contradiction. As I understand it, The Nameless One is able to learn multiple character classes and swap between then because in his past lives he had been a thief, wizard, and fighter, so he is able to recall the skills he once possessed. But he still requires a tutor to coax these memories out of him. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the jargon term "pathfinding" needs to be linked and/or explained. Non-game players may not find this term clear.
- —RJH (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am pleased to change my preference to support. Thank you for implementing the suggested changes.—RJH (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review. 3 images used in article, all are fair use and all appear to have adequate rationale. Tom B (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Planescape-torment-box.jpg certainly doesn't and the other two are highly questionable Fasach Nua (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Planescape-torment-box.jpg definitely does, compare the rationales of the box pictures used in all FA Class video game articles. Hekerui (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have improved the rationales for the first two images. I'm not sure what more there is to say about the third. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does File:PTNameless.jpg supposed to help readers have a "better understanding of the game's graphics", when it only shows the protagonist? Why is its "only purpose is to aid in the description of the fictional world of Planescape: Torment, and for no other purpose"? What critical analysis about this character's appearance is significant and cannot be explained without words? Is his face not already reflected in the cover art if one just wants to identify the protagonist? Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I wasn't sure what to do with the third. Based on your comments, I have removed the image and tagged it for deletion. My personal opinion is that it helps the article and should be kept, but I know that the fair-use criteria are stricter than I feel they should be. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does File:PTNameless.jpg supposed to help readers have a "better understanding of the game's graphics", when it only shows the protagonist? Why is its "only purpose is to aid in the description of the fictional world of Planescape: Torment, and for no other purpose"? What critical analysis about this character's appearance is significant and cannot be explained without words? Is his face not already reflected in the cover art if one just wants to identify the protagonist? Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have improved the rationales for the first two images. I'm not sure what more there is to say about the third. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Planescape-torment-box.jpg definitely does, compare the rationales of the box pictures used in all FA Class video game articles. Hekerui (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Planescape-torment-box.jpg certainly doesn't and the other two are highly questionable Fasach Nua (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support: The quality of the prose has improved since the Good Article nomination and some interesting new facts have been added. I believe that the article therefore deserves the “Featured Article” award. However, a “Themes” chapter would be the icing on the cake. I’m also not happy that all the information about fan translations and the fix pack were axed and I would strongly suggest to re-introduce them. I’m also considering to add information about the producers Guido Henkel’s important role in the development in the game. There only seem to be German sources for that. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. Anyway, the fan translations and fix pack were removed because the only sources that we could easily find were primary (I think this is discussed somewhere above, but I'm not sure where). If you have more information to add, please do! It never hurts. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What’s wrong with using primary sources to prove that something exists (if it obviously does)? When a game with nearly a million words is translated to another language by fans that’s a quite unique feature which is worth mentioning. Saying that this is not important just because the New York Times has not written an article about it, violates common sense. A bit like in the common joke: “A hand has five fingers.[citation needed]” Therefore I recommend bringing back as much information as possible from the two omitted paragraphs at the end of “Development” and “Adaptions” of the GA version. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you on this... I think that it is a very useful and interesting piece of information; I think that it was JimmyBlackwing who mentioned that it should be removed if sources couldn't be found. Maybe adding some back in would be good, but not all of them? But I guess that would show favoritism towards certain ones... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What’s wrong with using primary sources to prove that something exists (if it obviously does)? When a game with nearly a million words is translated to another language by fans that’s a quite unique feature which is worth mentioning. Saying that this is not important just because the New York Times has not written an article about it, violates common sense. A bit like in the common joke: “A hand has five fingers.[citation needed]” Therefore I recommend bringing back as much information as possible from the two omitted paragraphs at the end of “Development” and “Adaptions” of the GA version. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. Anyway, the fan translations and fix pack were removed because the only sources that we could easily find were primary (I think this is discussed somewhere above, but I'm not sure where). If you have more information to add, please do! It never hurts. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:
- "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."
- This also means that the stuff pulled from interviews we removed earlier can be reviewed to determine if they are reliably published. And if so, we can re-instate the material. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.