punknews.org -- per
WP:A/S, we should only use staff reviews. I see the "staff picks" tag on one citation but I don't know if that means it's a staff review; I've
posted a query. Update: there's already a response and it looks like that one is OK. I also see other uses of punknews.org that are not staff reviews and should be removed.
Youtube is not a reliable source unless it's an official channel of a reliable source.
What makes the following reliable sources?
adequacy.net -- per
this page this is not a professional organization.
antimusic.com
eastcoastromper.com -- seems to be a zine
wasteofmind.de
abridgedpause.com
helldriver-magazine.de
4P-fanzine.de
freespeech.org
nuskull.hu -- seems to have substantial history but I can't see anything about editorial control
wmtdzine.nl -- is a zine
Reflections -- reasonable looking magazine but per the masthead it seems semiprofessional at best
ox-fanzine.de -- another zine
Punk Planet -- per our article on it it's a zine
stillholdingon.net
noecho.net
idioteq.com -- describes itself as a DIY online magazine
throughtheseeyes.net
veganhardcore.de
allschools.de -- appears to be a site run by three friends
indulged.com
Moloko Plus 20
pastepunk.com
roterfaden.org
undevoured.com
hcmagazine.com
dfbpunk.com
I'm going to stop there; I got to about FN 95. I'm afraid I'm going to fail this immediately -- many of these are clearly unreliable; probably most, but even if half are salvageable the article would need significant work. You can ask about reliable sources for music at
WT:ALBUMS and you'll get knowledgeable help.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
22:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
There is a difference between
WP:Notable sources and
WP:Reliable sources. A website does not have to be notable to be considered reliable. Any non-self-hosted website is an accepted reliable source, unless it has been brought up as questionable on Wikipedia. There is no reason to automatically assume they are unreliable sources simply because you never heard of them. Several of the ones you pointed out were well-respected webzines and magazines (with a large followings) at the time that this album was released. Also, before quickly failing a GA, it is customary to provide the nominating user with a reasonable explanation of why you are doing so. Merely stating "article would need significant work" is not constructive feedback.--
Bricks&Woodtalk04:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I understand the different between reliability and notability. I failed the article not because I didn't recognize those sources, but because I was sure many of them were not reliable -- in my view the nomination was "a long way from meeting" criteria 2b, to quote the "Immediate failures" section of
WP:GACR. The form of words I used, "what makes these reliable?" did not mean I wasn't sure about some of them. "Any non-self-hosted website is an accepted reliable source" is not true, and I suggest you start a conversation about these sources at
WT:ALBUMS if you think so. To make this article meet the reliable source requirement for GA is going to require work to cut those sources out, along with the material they cite; that is constructive feedback. You are also welcome to post at
WT:GAN if you still think this was an inappropriate fail.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
07:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
punknews.org -- per
WP:A/S, we should only use staff reviews. I see the "staff picks" tag on one citation but I don't know if that means it's a staff review; I've
posted a query. Update: there's already a response and it looks like that one is OK. I also see other uses of punknews.org that are not staff reviews and should be removed.
Youtube is not a reliable source unless it's an official channel of a reliable source.
What makes the following reliable sources?
adequacy.net -- per
this page this is not a professional organization.
antimusic.com
eastcoastromper.com -- seems to be a zine
wasteofmind.de
abridgedpause.com
helldriver-magazine.de
4P-fanzine.de
freespeech.org
nuskull.hu -- seems to have substantial history but I can't see anything about editorial control
wmtdzine.nl -- is a zine
Reflections -- reasonable looking magazine but per the masthead it seems semiprofessional at best
ox-fanzine.de -- another zine
Punk Planet -- per our article on it it's a zine
stillholdingon.net
noecho.net
idioteq.com -- describes itself as a DIY online magazine
throughtheseeyes.net
veganhardcore.de
allschools.de -- appears to be a site run by three friends
indulged.com
Moloko Plus 20
pastepunk.com
roterfaden.org
undevoured.com
hcmagazine.com
dfbpunk.com
I'm going to stop there; I got to about FN 95. I'm afraid I'm going to fail this immediately -- many of these are clearly unreliable; probably most, but even if half are salvageable the article would need significant work. You can ask about reliable sources for music at
WT:ALBUMS and you'll get knowledgeable help.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
22:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
There is a difference between
WP:Notable sources and
WP:Reliable sources. A website does not have to be notable to be considered reliable. Any non-self-hosted website is an accepted reliable source, unless it has been brought up as questionable on Wikipedia. There is no reason to automatically assume they are unreliable sources simply because you never heard of them. Several of the ones you pointed out were well-respected webzines and magazines (with a large followings) at the time that this album was released. Also, before quickly failing a GA, it is customary to provide the nominating user with a reasonable explanation of why you are doing so. Merely stating "article would need significant work" is not constructive feedback.--
Bricks&Woodtalk04:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I understand the different between reliability and notability. I failed the article not because I didn't recognize those sources, but because I was sure many of them were not reliable -- in my view the nomination was "a long way from meeting" criteria 2b, to quote the "Immediate failures" section of
WP:GACR. The form of words I used, "what makes these reliable?" did not mean I wasn't sure about some of them. "Any non-self-hosted website is an accepted reliable source" is not true, and I suggest you start a conversation about these sources at
WT:ALBUMS if you think so. To make this article meet the reliable source requirement for GA is going to require work to cut those sources out, along with the material they cite; that is constructive feedback. You are also welcome to post at
WT:GAN if you still think this was an inappropriate fail.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
07:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply