Talk:Merseyside Skeptics Society

Merseyside Skeptics Society has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 2, 2013. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Merseyside Skeptics Society appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 July 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Merseyside Skeptics Society organised a mass overdose of homeopathic preparations?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Merseyside Skeptics Society.

Wikipedia

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merseyside Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

"Skeptics with a K: Episode #102". Merseyside Skeptics Society. 25 July 2013.
"Skeptics with a K: Episode #109". Merseyside Skeptics Society. 31 October 2013.

There is a review at Talk:Merseyside Skeptics Society/GA1.

Archives

Archive 1

Rewrite[edit]

I am currently working on a rewrite of this article. My work in progress can be found at User:MrBill3/draft_article_MSS. MrBill3 (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I'll give it a look tomorrow and see if I can help with it at all. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite at the link above is ready to be posted as the article pending comment. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite pasted over the article contained contributions from multiple editors, see edit history of User:MrBill3/draft_article_MSS (added to maintain license per WP:Copy). 70.46.120.175 (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history was merged as per the discussion below. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Merseyside Skeptics Society/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dynamicimanyd (talk · contribs) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in my opinion a good article. It is well written with good spelling and grammar, consistent formatting and is cleanly organised. It is factual, well cited, has a neutral point of view and adequate citation in describing the society's activities (some of which involve areas that engender heated debate, where statements from the opposing viewpoint have been summarised and factual outcome has been mentioned (e.g. in section Sports wristband test, spokesman & director's comments/statements are reffered to with reference to Liverpool Echo news article) and has no inline tags for improvement and does not appear to warrant any such tags. The article uses specific cited quotations to describe relevant matters of opinion and intent that might otherwise appear to be original work or opinion from the editors of the article (e.g. History second paragraph (skeptic versus sceptic), Podcasts/Be Reasonable (hosts described their show as...)).

The article also provides a relevant home for suitably brief but referenced information about the conference QED: Question, Explore, Discover (sometimes referred to as QEDcon, and a search for that term does find a nearby section of this article). QEDcon may in future years establish suitable notability for a separate page, similar to The Amazing Meeting, but for now this seems to be sufficient coverage.

I have also tried various search terms, such as "QEDcon" and "Mersey sceptics" using various spellings, and Wikipedia search provides relevant results in those cases.

The Lead section meets all the criteria and includes ample cross-reference links to relevant Wikipedia articles, albeit no external citations at that point. It's clear, brief, neutral and provides a reasonable summary.

There appears to be no original research, maintaining neutrality and reliance on reliable sources with sufficient attribution of quotations.

The level of detail is sufficient but not excessive, with further information available from referenced sources.

The article maintains a neutral point of view and describes potentially controversial or contentious subject with attributed quotes without expressing an unattributed opinion.

There do not appear to be any edit wars.

The MSS logo has an appropriate logo fair use rationale. An appropriate number of photographs are included, all taken at relevant venues with free licenses and the appearance of being own work, as claimed in those licenses.

It is pretty clear that this is written in the style typical of a Wikipedia article, with virtually no likelihood of copyright violation. Quotations are short and attributed, so would not constitute infringement.

Verification of citations, as numbered on 2013-07-29 21:29 UT.

1. Own website, simply giving date of foundation.
2. Liverpool Echo, reputable city newspaper - still on their website.
3. I have verified details with Companies House website company search.
4. The Guardian newspaper - still in web archive - quote is accurate.
5. Website - frequency of meetings is not contentious, accords with information I've heard repeatedly, so a more 'reliable source' not required.
6. Own website, non-contentious, much verified by speakers via twitter in the past, some released as Youtube videos.
7. Open letter the Boots on own website and same on Richard Dawkins' website.
8. The Daily Telegraph newspaper - still in web archive.
9. BBC Online - reliable source.
10. BBC News Online & New Scientist - reliable
11. The Independent / Associate Press - quote accurate
12. Medical Observer (Australia) & American Humanist - independent, believed reliable.
13. Blog hosted by The Guardian newspaper website. Non-controversial statement cited.
14. Liverpool Echo, still on website. Update of claims on Shuzi's UK website not explicitly mentioned in cited article.
15. Daily Mail online.
16. Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Nov/Dec 2012 - not available for me to verify. Correction, have found a link. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_pseudoscience_of_live_blood_cell_analysis/ I'd suggest additionally citing [this Guardian article] written by Prof Edzard Ernst. I may amend the citation myself.
17. Guardian Online - Notes & Theories - Dispatches From the Science Desk - authored by MSS vice president, Michael Marshall but implicitly endorsed by The Guardian Science Desk/Science Editor.
18. Liverpool Echo, Telegraph and Guardian citations - all reliable sources.
19. Daily Telegraph article & New Humanist article
20. Guardian - 2 articles by Prof French (academic involved in test) and Michael Marshall (MSS vp, also involved in the challenge). Both factual and presumably endorsed by the Guardian's Science Editor and in accord with coverage I heard on The Pod Delusion podcast, including interviews with the participants.
21. Mail Online, BBC Online
22. BBC Online, correctly quoted.
23. BBC Online, correctly quoted.
24. Guardian online, correctly quoted.
25. Own website - accurately quoted plus blog plus Ormskirk & Skelmersdale Advertiser newspaper.
26. Own website - just a list of three podcasts, all of which they publish at time of review.
27. Cited episode one of own podcast, Skeptics With A K (Tues 28 Jul 2009)
28. Accurately cited interview website.
29. As above plus podcast episode cited as example.
30. As 29, and I recall this episode well, including the reveal the following week.
31. Links to the specific episodes and a web article about them.
32. Link to first episode.
33. Own site, archive of episodes. Might help to indicate sporadic nature of inKredulous podcast episodes.
34. Daily Telegraph online.
35. Link to first episode.
36. Wrong link to InKredulous podcast episodes - I will correct this to Be Reasonable episode list.
37. MSS and GMSS websites. Accurately cited. Non controversial.
38. Hampshire Skeptics Society review of both days of QEDcon 2011 accurately cited.
39. Skeptical Inquirer - accurately quoted.
40. Richard Dawkins website accurately quoted.
41. Paper citation of The Skeptic / Deborah Hyde with link to their Wiki article, confirmed by Pod Delusion podcast and other podcast coverage.
42. AHS website. Non-controversial list of speakers and verified by twitter, podcasts etc. at the time.
43. Paper citation of The Skeptic, with interviews of winners on their website at time of review, and results confirmed by various skeptical podcasts (e.g. Pod Delusion, Token Skeptic)
44. Contact page of own website, non-controversial.

External links, just three, but the most relevant three.

In my opinion everything is of an approriate standard for Good Article status, subject to the minor corrections to the citations I mentioned above, which I will make immediately - making my first edit on this article. Dynamicimanyd (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History merge[edit]

This is mostly directed at MrBill3 and Anthony Appleyard regarding the history merge. It seems as though Bill reverted the page back to the first draft that was copied to the article to speed up the process of a history merge, however this means that we lost all subsequent edits of which there were quite a few. Just wondering if this could be sorted in such a way that we have the most recent additions to the article whilst maintaining an accurate history for both draft and article spaces? Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves seems to suggest this is possible. I'm a little confused so if I've misunderstood the situation let me know. Samwalton9 (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I took care of it with a revert.MrBill3 (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Merseyside Skeptics Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]