![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (March 2020) This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. (March 2020) This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (March 2020)
criticism 2 addressed: no, not too heavily; only the last sentences had primary resource, and that was necessary to make known where the rbmc is now, which is an important feature. the entire article before that, the vast majority of the article had none.
criticism of the use of a blog? response: per wiki guidelines blogs may be used in certain situations. "Is the article you're sourcing via a blog of a non-biographical nature (i.e., about computer science? Cooking? History about deceased individuals?) from a website that is known in the relevant subject circles as a source or authority? If the specific author of the specific blog post an expert or authority? In either case, the blog post may be fine to use." the blog contained a reprint of a newspaper article from 1983 that i used to get some of the early information on rbmc.
criticism of primary sources: per Wiki guidelines:"According to our content guideline on identifying reliable sources, reliable sources have most, if not all, of the following characteristics: It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s). It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes."
My sources are called primary; i would say they are secondary; in any case, whether primary or secondary, they all were ok, i believe.they met all of the guidelines met above. Mwinog2777 ( talk) 04:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
criticism of too close associated with the subject; they were written by reporters , except for the last paragraph, which according to wiki guidelines can be used. Mwinog2777 ( talk) 04:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work! I think that the tags that are already on there are appropriate and recommend adding independent sources..
North8000 ( talk) 12:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (March 2020) This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. (March 2020) This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (March 2020)
criticism 2 addressed: no, not too heavily; only the last sentences had primary resource, and that was necessary to make known where the rbmc is now, which is an important feature. the entire article before that, the vast majority of the article had none.
criticism of the use of a blog? response: per wiki guidelines blogs may be used in certain situations. "Is the article you're sourcing via a blog of a non-biographical nature (i.e., about computer science? Cooking? History about deceased individuals?) from a website that is known in the relevant subject circles as a source or authority? If the specific author of the specific blog post an expert or authority? In either case, the blog post may be fine to use." the blog contained a reprint of a newspaper article from 1983 that i used to get some of the early information on rbmc.
criticism of primary sources: per Wiki guidelines:"According to our content guideline on identifying reliable sources, reliable sources have most, if not all, of the following characteristics: It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s). It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes."
My sources are called primary; i would say they are secondary; in any case, whether primary or secondary, they all were ok, i believe.they met all of the guidelines met above. Mwinog2777 ( talk) 04:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
criticism of too close associated with the subject; they were written by reporters , except for the last paragraph, which according to wiki guidelines can be used. Mwinog2777 ( talk) 04:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work! I think that the tags that are already on there are appropriate and recommend adding independent sources..
North8000 ( talk) 12:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)