Discussion

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SnottyWong talk 14:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article for GA status and I am quick-failing it for a complete lack of reliable sources. The only section that is sourced is the short "Reception" section at the end. The introduction, "Production", and "Plot Overview" sections (which comprise 95% of the article) are almost entirely unsourced. For the statements that are sourced, their source is the audio commentary from a DVD. This is not GA material. If you'd like to improve this article, please thoroughly read and understand WP:RS. SnottyWong talk 14:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, you don't need to reference plot section, see Pilot (30 Rock) for an example. Second, the whole production section was referenced by the audio commentary which is a reliable source and common when referencing production information. You have given one of the worst reviews possibly, not because you did not pass it, but because you did not give a "good" review. Therefor either you review it again or you get someone else to do it.

You've are a terrible reviewer, you have just overlooked tons of references. --TIAYN (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that three references qualifies as "tons" of references. The article is obviously not GA status, and not worth the time of a GA reviewer to post a thorough review. The GA quick-fail criteria are clear on this. A GA reviewer is not required to provide a lengthy review if the article is clearly not GA material (especially given the huge backlog of potentially legitimate GA articles awaiting review). If you're looking for comments, get a peer review. If you disagree with my assessment, apply for a reassessment. If you're looking to be constructive, however, get some real sources. The article you mentioned, Pilot (30 Rock) has 38 references, compared to 3 for this article.

Is their a guideline out which is against use of three references?, if soo please show me! This one had only five and it still passed. Even if their are few references, you can't just not pass it!! You can't just pass an article because you believe is should be more references. The article only needs to be referenced, and have over one reference. --TIAYN (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not solely that you don't have enough references, it's also that your references are poor quality. Can you find a transcript of the audio commentary on the DVD? Otherwise, who is actually going to buy the DVD and listen to the audio commentary to verify that your article is accurate? Second, your reference on the Nielsen rating is from an X-files fan site, not a reliable source. Third, your last reference has a link that doesn't point directly to the data you're referencing. I wouldn't even rate this article as B-status. Furthermore, I'm tempted to apply for a reassessment of Without (The X-Files), as I wouldn't have passed that one either. SnottyWong talk 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First: An audio commentary is commonly used in these articles. So live with it.

Second: Your right. The Nielsen ratings are referenced by a fansite, but the site has not been proven faulse by any reliable sources. In season 1-7 articles, most of the articles are commonly referenced by a book, such as Things: The Official Guide to the X-Files Volume 6.. The Problem being that their does not exist such a book for season 8-9. Being that the sites nielsen data has not been proven faulse or inaccurate by the reliable sources. It should and is a reliable source.

Third: The source has been used that way on a toons of other articles. And it is impossible to give a direct link to the source. This has been used on such articles as "Adrift" and "Two Fathers". To find the page, follow the instructions found on the reference!

--TIAYN (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A source is not reliable just because you think it is. WP has a definition of what a reliable source is. Have you read it? Here's a quote: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Do you still consider your X-files fan site a reliable source? SnottyWong talk 16:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for an example of good articles about TV episodes, look at The Stolen Earth. 107 references. The plot section is heavily referenced. Just because you can find an article whose plot section isn't referenced doesn't mean that this article's plot section doesn't need to be referenced (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). SnottyWong talk 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An episode in 2008 has more references available then an episode in 2001. A plot summary does not need to be referenced, being that the episode is the reference of itself. Second, its not enough to no pass the article because its plot section is not referenced!

I'm contacting an administrator to resolve this, since you are clearly to stubborn to see your own faults!!!--TIAYN (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take whatever action you think is necessary. I have done nothing wrong, and stand by my actions. This article is not even close to GA status, it meets the GA quick-fail criteria, and it is not worth the time of a GA reviewer to do a thorough review. Once again, if you'd like a second opinion, seek a reassessment. Personally, if GA status is your goal, I think your time would be better spent by expanding the article and referencing your statements. SnottyWong talk 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DVD commentary has been accepted in hundreds of episode GAs, and 10s of episodes FAs. I think the site used for Nielsen data is probably not a RS, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but there are zero GA's that use DVD commentary as their only source for 95% of the article. SnottyWong talk 16:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main contributor to this article has now scrambled to add references to this article, some of which are still not good quality. In any case, for reference, this is the article I reviewed. SnottyWong talk 17:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was referenced then, and is still well referenced now. The only difference is that i added two reviews which didn't have anything to do with the above discussion, the second being that i referenced the plot overview as a compromise, even if i don't think its really neccessary. --TIAYN (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Existence (The X-Files)/1.