Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Neighbours 30th Anniversary/1
Neighbours 30th Anniversary[edit]
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
At the article's DYK nomination, an editor expressed concern with the reliance of YouTube videos. I'm bringing this here to see if editors share this concern, and to determine if the article does meet the GA criteria for sourcing. Thanks to everyone who takes a look. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- I was the editor who expressed the concern—I was troubled by the excessive reliance on self-published, non-independent YouTube videos for large parts of the article, especially the "Cast" and "Filming" sections. In total, there are 67 individual citations to YouTube videos, and one to Facebook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really see a problem with most of the YouTube videos in this article as the videos are mainly from the show's official verified account and are used in cases where there isn't currently a better source available for them. The sourced videos are reliable, according to WP:RSPYT, as they were uploaded by the official channel and are therefore able to be verified to the uploader. YouTube links have been and are able to be sourced in GAs (1, 2). Happily888 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Happily888, those discussions took place over a decade and a half ago. Do you know of any more recent discussions? If videos were uploaded to the official channel, that surely means that they are self-published, non-independent, and primary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- See this more recent RfC discussion which shows if the verified channel owner is known and the content is not a copyvio, the content inherits inherent reliability and is able to be sourced on wikipedia. For example, some of the interview videos sourced in this article contain information which isn't posted elsewhere and therefore are the best sources of information for cast members. Happily888 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree, if the videos were third-party sources Happily888. But these are not third-party, they are non-WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:PRIMARY sources.
- From WP:IS: "To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia."
- These videos might be the "best sources of information for cast members", but that does not mean that the information should be included. It is policy that Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- AirshipJungleman29: However, there are some cases where information should be included in articles: if the best source for this is primary and a video, it should be the source included. The only way to link such sources in video form, whilst avoiding copyvios, is to use videos posted only from an official channel.
- WP:IS does state that independent sources are required in articles but it does not state that every source must be independent; rather, it instead allows non-independent sources to be used to
fill in non-controversial details
, with the section you quoted referring tostatements about the subjects importance and why
requiring independent sources. A primary source could be reliable whilst secondary source could be unreliable, it is better to instead look at sources on a case-by-case basis for the best possible source for that information, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or WP:PRIMARYCARE, which provides examples of primary sources being acceptable in some cases such as direct quotations and sourcing information about plots or characters. Happily888 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)- Ok, I think I can accept that Happily888. Thanks for your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- See this more recent RfC discussion which shows if the verified channel owner is known and the content is not a copyvio, the content inherits inherent reliability and is able to be sourced on wikipedia. For example, some of the interview videos sourced in this article contain information which isn't posted elsewhere and therefore are the best sources of information for cast members. Happily888 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Happily888, those discussions took place over a decade and a half ago. Do you know of any more recent discussions? If videos were uploaded to the official channel, that surely means that they are self-published, non-independent, and primary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really see a problem with most of the YouTube videos in this article as the videos are mainly from the show's official verified account and are used in cases where there isn't currently a better source available for them. The sourced videos are reliable, according to WP:RSPYT, as they were uploaded by the official channel and are therefore able to be verified to the uploader. YouTube links have been and are able to be sourced in GAs (1, 2). Happily888 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
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.