Talk:Tibetan Review

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work!.

North8000 (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Tibetan Review.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History - Subsection CleanUp

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi, Greetings! This section looks a lot like WP:SYNTH as the quoted references doesn't support the claims. As the article lacks any reliable sources it needs to be fully deleted, as it fails WP:V and WP:NPOV. Opinion? @Randykitty, @Headbomb, @Materialscientist, @Rosguill Thank you! Nanosci (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there's a lot of academic and print citations included in that section. You should start by going through claim-by-cited-claim, beginning with ones that are accessible online, and assess whether the source verifies the claim and is reliable for it. Depending on the proportion of the sources turn out to be fake or inadequate, the extent to which inaccessible sources should be trusted will vary. I scanned the earliest revisions of the page with gptzero and got a "most likely human" result so this doesn't seem to be a case of AI-faked citations. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanosci: There seem to be a number of things wrong with what you've done here. First is, it looks a lot like canvassing. Second, you can challenge individual statements and whether their footnotes verify by tagging them with things like {{failed verification}} or {{unreliable source?}}. Someone will need to do this on a statement by statement basis, so why not start it yourself?

Third, if you are convinced the article should be deleted, you can propose deletion or nominate it at AFD - there's no point holding a pre-discussion as that's what the AFD discussion is for. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Jmcgnh: Just to clarify, the idea was is to purely create a common consensus on the concern and not to canvass anything. To justify the previous statement and my intentions here are few points: 1) just to bring attention of active editors' attention it was posted on the talk page (and not on personal talk page) with help me tag, as the creator of the page is not active since May '22. 2) users tagged here are active on WikipediaProject of Academic Journals and other relevant projects hence with with expectation of quicker response they were tagged. 3) I don't think AFD the whole page is required, but it can definitely use some cleaning up. The intention is purely to bring in some ideas to make the article better.

To reiterate my point, to avoid any misunderstanding, this particular section has synthesized facts and most of the references are not relevant, so as per WP:V and WP:SYNTH, I am inviting people to edit and improve the subsection. As you and another editor suggested, I will go statement by statement basis and clear up the section. Nanosci (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]