GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
In terms of the sources: I will try to replace the amazon references to references to the publisher, but I don't think HarperCollins provides a release date for its UK edition of Warriors (which is essentially the same as the US version). The next two sources you mention are Writers Unboxed and Wands and Worlds. In my usage of both sites, I have refrained from citing anything that could be seen as unreliable. What I am citing, if you check those pages, are interview tramscripts, the Wands and Worlds one being in the form of an author chat (I have only cited statements made by the authors, and not the other participants of the chat). I feel therefore that those two should be considered reliable, as they are not much different from any other interview transcript published on the internet. Kate Cary's blog: While I understand we don't normally cite blogs, the blog is written by Kate Cary, one of the Erin Hunters. If I remember correctly, what I've cited is an FAQ/about myself sort of page which she claims to have created to help students doing projects about her, or something along those lines. I'm not sure if you consider that reliable, but again, seeing as it essentially is more direct statements from the author(s), I personally feel that it is reliable (I mean, what author would stick lies about themselves on their own blog?) I may be kind of busy, this week, but will do my best to resolve the issues raised. Bramble claw x 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I realise that I've written quite a lot above in my response, so I'll give a short summary of the above here: I feel that these are reliable sources per WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. One of the points under that section is that there be no reasonable doubt to its authenticity. These sources are likely to be authentic: for example, many people can attest to having participated in these author chats, and the authors often mention the author chats themselves, proving that they likely happened. I have also asked about the usage of these sources before on the RSN, and the two sections are here and here. I hope, therefore, that you will agree with me that these sources should be considered reliable. Bramble claw x 14:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
In terms of the sources: I will try to replace the amazon references to references to the publisher, but I don't think HarperCollins provides a release date for its UK edition of Warriors (which is essentially the same as the US version). The next two sources you mention are Writers Unboxed and Wands and Worlds. In my usage of both sites, I have refrained from citing anything that could be seen as unreliable. What I am citing, if you check those pages, are interview tramscripts, the Wands and Worlds one being in the form of an author chat (I have only cited statements made by the authors, and not the other participants of the chat). I feel therefore that those two should be considered reliable, as they are not much different from any other interview transcript published on the internet. Kate Cary's blog: While I understand we don't normally cite blogs, the blog is written by Kate Cary, one of the Erin Hunters. If I remember correctly, what I've cited is an FAQ/about myself sort of page which she claims to have created to help students doing projects about her, or something along those lines. I'm not sure if you consider that reliable, but again, seeing as it essentially is more direct statements from the author(s), I personally feel that it is reliable (I mean, what author would stick lies about themselves on their own blog?) I may be kind of busy, this week, but will do my best to resolve the issues raised. Bramble claw x 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I realise that I've written quite a lot above in my response, so I'll give a short summary of the above here: I feel that these are reliable sources per WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. One of the points under that section is that there be no reasonable doubt to its authenticity. These sources are likely to be authentic: for example, many people can attest to having participated in these author chats, and the authors often mention the author chats themselves, proving that they likely happened. I have also asked about the usage of these sources before on the RSN, and the two sections are here and here. I hope, therefore, that you will agree with me that these sources should be considered reliable. Bramble claw x 14:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)