GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant ( talk · contribs) 00:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Butlerblog: I see you have nominated this article for GA status. Immediately I have to quick fail the article due to the edit war which happened earlier in the month. There was a series of edits and a ongoing talk page discussion. Additionally there was indeed copy right violations. Finally the use of Fox News is problematic in this instance as they have been established to be unreliable on politics and science which both have a relative overlap with religion. Finally the article itself is good except for the reviews section which seems rather small and most of the reviews listed come from sources which wouldnt typically be used in a tv article. So I would recommend hunting down more reviews, doing a source cleanup, and archive some of the sources. Thanks OLI 01:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I would ask you to take a look at the Fox News sources again. They are not religion articles, they are from the entertainment category which would pass
WP:RSP (same as this article is not a religion article here at Wikipedia - it's a television article). Can you provide more specifics for any copyright violations. I have used Earwig's copyvio detector and found no specific issues. Can you point out what you believe to be problematic?
ButlerBlog (
talk)
01:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to do the work for youshows a total disregard for our process for reporting issues outlined at WP:DCV. I would appreciate you not doing the same. If you suspect it, address it directly. Otherwise, don't bother bring it up.
the show's popularity began largely as an underground phenomenon, going unnoticed and unreviewed by major publications. Taking that in context, there is very little in terms of "standard" reviews (and awards/accolades) because the show has intentionally operated outside of the Hollywood mainstream. To attempt to seek out more content for this section would be "forced" and inauthentic in the article. Since sources such as Variety typically pan this type of production, you simply are not going to find many reviews that come from WP:RS qualified sources. If there aren't mainstream reviews (which there aren't), then there just aren't any. Now, with that in mind, I have sought out some additional content for this section, and I'll note that I disagree with the assessment that they
come from sources which wouldnt typically be used in a tv article. If you disagree with that, then I would ask what sources you think are not "typical".
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant ( talk · contribs) 00:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Butlerblog: I see you have nominated this article for GA status. Immediately I have to quick fail the article due to the edit war which happened earlier in the month. There was a series of edits and a ongoing talk page discussion. Additionally there was indeed copy right violations. Finally the use of Fox News is problematic in this instance as they have been established to be unreliable on politics and science which both have a relative overlap with religion. Finally the article itself is good except for the reviews section which seems rather small and most of the reviews listed come from sources which wouldnt typically be used in a tv article. So I would recommend hunting down more reviews, doing a source cleanup, and archive some of the sources. Thanks OLI 01:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I would ask you to take a look at the Fox News sources again. They are not religion articles, they are from the entertainment category which would pass
WP:RSP (same as this article is not a religion article here at Wikipedia - it's a television article). Can you provide more specifics for any copyright violations. I have used Earwig's copyvio detector and found no specific issues. Can you point out what you believe to be problematic?
ButlerBlog (
talk)
01:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to do the work for youshows a total disregard for our process for reporting issues outlined at WP:DCV. I would appreciate you not doing the same. If you suspect it, address it directly. Otherwise, don't bother bring it up.
the show's popularity began largely as an underground phenomenon, going unnoticed and unreviewed by major publications. Taking that in context, there is very little in terms of "standard" reviews (and awards/accolades) because the show has intentionally operated outside of the Hollywood mainstream. To attempt to seek out more content for this section would be "forced" and inauthentic in the article. Since sources such as Variety typically pan this type of production, you simply are not going to find many reviews that come from WP:RS qualified sources. If there aren't mainstream reviews (which there aren't), then there just aren't any. Now, with that in mind, I have sought out some additional content for this section, and I'll note that I disagree with the assessment that they
come from sources which wouldnt typically be used in a tv article. If you disagree with that, then I would ask what sources you think are not "typical".