#::My only 2c question at present is if you could include at least one more source in the lead towards the "among the greatest" statement. I personally agree, and am sure it wouldn't be hard to find the source, but a statement like that in a lead probably merits a second source. As for formatting consistency, some examples:
- Added one.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
04:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
6 (the main B-Ref Bonds stats page), eg, uses a different format for crediting Sports Reference. All B-Ref pages should list "Sports Reference, LLC"
- Fixed that and made all B-Rs linkable in the refs.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
05:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
The very first reference doesn't cite ESPN properly or in line with other ESPN references (116, 117, eg). The general format for ESPN I've seen is |work=[[ESPN.com]]|publisher=ESPN Internet Ventures
What makes "jockbio" (#7) a reliable source?
Sources from the general MLB.com need to list MLB.com under work.
-
-
-
What makes "Sports Collectors Daily" (archived in #100) a reliable source? It looks like a blog.
-
-
-
Ref #107 needs formatting in line with other MLB refs
The Associated Press needs to be credited separately from the source distributing their material (76, 77, eg)
-
-
-
Related to the above, the Yahoo refs need a consistent format (compare those two to #109 to 111)
-
What makes The Wiire a reliable source? (#121)
- Based on what? The staff application form asks for your name and email address. That's it. And it's blatently, immediately stated as being self-published. And it's a blog. And why use that when sources like
this or
this covering similar material from RSes is available?
Staxringold
talk
contribs
22:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
Mentioned in the PR, what makes Los Altos Hills.com a RS (#148)?
Ref 113 is just a link and is dead
Ref 103 is dead.
Ref 153 is dead.
Staxringold
talk
contribs
14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
Ref 136 is dead.
Staxringold
talk
contribs
14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
What makes "thebaseballcube" (#11) a reliable source?
Looking at their About Us page, for example, I see no connections to major media outlets? This is an honest question, as a baseball editor I'd like to know if they're considered reliable. Have other RSes cited TBC?
- At FAC, it would be considered questionable. One would have to show that professionals who are expert on baseball use him as a source. Alternatively, in the event that he produces stats that no one else does, one might make the case based on his source data. However, in general his reliability would be based on quotes of other sources using relying on his data as dependable and credible. At GAC, it is perfectly fine like most sports reference sources.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
03:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- How does the level of review affect the reliability of the source? If TBC is quoted in major publications or supported by a major organization that's one thing, but I see nothing. Cohen doesn't even identify any baseball expertise (work in baseball, published books on the subject, etc) to get at RS like Sasata does with some of his mushroom sites written by PhDs.
Staxringold
talk
contribs
03:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Basically, an
WP:RS is something that passes muster with a professional editor. He may be an editor at
Time or a free local newspaper such as the
Chicago Reader. Pretty much anything a professional editor lets go to print is considered an
WP:RS. Wikis and blogs are another animal where anyone can say anything and no one who is an expert has to approve it. Certain blogs by people who are experts are O.K. Especially now since a lot of respected periodicals allow their writers to blog without editorial review. We presume these professional and experts review their own work and are as critical as an editor and give it nearly the same weight as an RS. A blog by me about something for which I am not an authority is not an RS. However, if I regularly start producing content that serious editors accept as fact for inclusion in their work, it is as if they are approved by the same editorial process that RSs are approved by. I.E., if a writers work that passes through review is considered an RS, that portion of the content submitted by a source such as baseball cube that these same editors approve for publication is sort of a defacto RS. If ESPN articles or Fox Sports or Sports Illustrated cites the cube, it becomes a RS because their editors allow it to go to press.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
04:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
-
-
- When I did
Tyrone Wheatley, I had to replace all the replaceable Pro-football-reference.com citations that I could. However, when push came to shove on a list of his 100-yard games, they were the only source and that was an important enough fact to retain PFR. These types of sources are a lower level of reliability than editorial RSs or stuff like NFL.com, MLB.com, and NBA.com. In a pinch they can be accepted. It all depends.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
06:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
-
|