Wikipedia:Peer review/Wikipedia/archive7
Appearance
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback before starting a GAN.
Thanks, EpicPupper (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, @EpicPupper! I'd like to see the citations moved out of the lead section. Everything in the lead section should be in the body sections with citations there, so there shouldn't be anything in the lead section that needs a citation. (Exception for anything so controversial that it would cause constant questions). Check to make sure the info in the lead is indeed covered in the body, with citation/s, add any citations or content that are in the lead to the sections, and then you can remove the citations from the lead. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
Doing... EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: and @EpicPupper:, I disagree. The citations should be kept because they help a lot in checking if the claims are or aren't verifiable, and if the sources are reliable or not. It is important to keep them on the lead section because that's what most users read. At least these citations should be kept until the article is fully checked, and stated as good article. I recently found many issues in the article, such as use of vested and overall unreliable sources, and content in the lead section that doesn't verify with the inline citations.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Hfnreiwjfd, we generally only include citations in the lead if the assertions they support are likely to be controversial. —valereee (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Irrelevant, off-topic
|
---|
Hfnreiwjfd: This isn't how it works. The job of the GA reviewer is to ensure that everything without an in-line citation in the lead is reflected in the main body of the article. Requesting that they be preserved until the article is granted GA status is not a comment rooted in Wikipedia policy or even general matter of course. None of the information in the lead is controversial. So long as it’s properly cited in the article, they can be removed—that's the nominator's role. As they remove them, they need to go through the article and ensure they're reflected. It’s up to the reviewer to ensure they did it properly. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
|
- @EpicPupper: I would like to mention that many sentences are unreferenced, especially at the end of some paragraphs. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @EpicPupper: the article has many statements self-referencing Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and so so. These statements don't make it clear in prose that the statements are according to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc, which violates WP:CIRCULAR. Also, there are paragraphs that mostly self-reference Wikipedia, which is undue weight, etc, violating WP:PRIMARY, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:WEIGHT, and so son. So these issues shall be addressed.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Hello! I'll be giving my thoughts on this article. Right now, I think the article has a few huge major failings that would (in my view) qualify it for quick fail. You can expect my comments—potentially in chunks—over the next few days. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 02:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- I should probably ask before I start. Are you still interested? It’s been two weeks since Valereee left her comments and it looks like you haven't touched at all yet. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 02:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ImaginesTigers: Yes, I'm still interested. I've been busy lately but will get to the comments. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 01:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)