Talk:Being You: A New Science of Consciousness/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SpaceEconomist192 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I apologize for the outcome of this Good Article nomination. Your hard work on the article is evident, but I will have to quickly fail the article. There is way too many unsourced material, there are whole paragraphs without a single source. I've added ^{[citation needed]} templates to all the content that need a citation. Also, the article reads rather awkwardly and needs an urgent copyvio, I've added the respective template too. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 21:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @SpaceEconomist192, thank you for taking the time to review the article.

Unfortunately, I will have to contend against your decision. MOS:BOOKPLOT, while for fiction books, states that primary source statements - that is info directly from the book - do not need a source. I have sourced all secondary info mentioned in the book that I included in the article (such as references to external material).

123Writer ^talk 21:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@1TWO3Writer: From my reading of MOS:BOOKPLOT I couldn't see any statement about the possibility of unsourced material in an article. Instead this policy refers that primary sources, specifically the original work and affiliated works, can be used to support primary information about the fictional universe of the book. I highly doubt any Wikipedia policy says that there can be unsourced information, it would go against its core principles. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 21:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SpaceEconomist192

Please look at these non-fiction FAs that prove my point:

Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, Liber Eliensis.

Are you going to ask for these FAs to be removed because the contents sections have unsourced statements? Mind you, these are FAs, where secondary analysis of the book is expected. GA is not as stringent. See Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature for a whole host of unsourced info.

As for copy editing, perhaps there is awkward writing here and there, but GA Hold exists for a reason—unless the article is unreadable, quick-failing for copy edit is unseen.

If you still think that your decision was correct, then we shall await for an backlog coordinator to review your review. If it is said to be invalid, I will be renominating the article and looking for a second opinion.

Thank you,

123Writer ^talk 22:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@1TWO3Writer: The policy which you probably want to refer to is MOS:PLOTSOURCE. This one does state that the plot summary can be unsourced, since its assumed the work itself is the source. Nevertheless, this policy is encompassed in the Manual of Style for writing about fiction so it doesn't apply to this article. Regarding those three articles you linked, only the first is unsourced and the reason provided was precisely the above policy, which again would be invalid for the article in question. I'm unaware of any policy that would exempt all this unsourced material, if you can provide one that englobes non-fiction books then I would be glad to review this article. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 23:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]