Talk:Jill Valentine/GA2

GA Review 2

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

Reviewer: Futuretrillionaire (talk · contribs) 00:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go ahead and quick fail this. This article contains a lot of unreliable or possibly unreliable sources, including these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] I brought up the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Jill Valentine and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Jill Valentine, where editors seem to agree that some of these sources are indeed inappropriate. Perhaps some of the ones I mentioned are reliable, but the ones deemed unreiable should be replaced with reliable ones.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in Wikipedia:Copyrights about either Facebook nor YouTube, and in Wikipedia:Verifiability it's only "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright" and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as [5 points] This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." Now please re-open it ASAP. --Niemti (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is what Wikipedia:External links (aka "WP:YOUTUBE") actually says: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. [...] There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content." --Niemti (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should have asked me first. Like, right here. I'd explain everything, and also, as you see, chances are I'm actually better informed than other people (and especially than my stalker). --Niemti (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook and YouTube sources aren't the only problematic sources I brought up. You can find the other source issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Jill Valentine. Unless the sourcing in this article is fixed, I can't re-open this.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure aren't, but I could explain to you how they're either not problematic or can be substituted. And what's even more important, let me also point out to you that misundersood the quick-fail criteria, which is The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.[3] (bolding emphasis added by me). Please always remember to carefully read the policies and guidelines before using them. --Niemti (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IAR and "If you believe a detailed review is premature, add your reasons to the review page and use the fail process" Sorry, but the sourcing in this article is nowhere close to GA status. Re-opening this now is not going to fix anything. This review being closed is not preventing you from fixing the problems. Re-nominate this when you believe the all the sourcing problems have been addressed. Also, I'm watching this page, so there's no need to ping my talk page.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And all of QF criteria are very clearly defined and complete. "Ignore all rules" - seriously? In that case you just shouldn't be reviewing at all. Especially since: Importantly, the GA criteria are a standard, not the opinion of individual reviewers (it's technically an essay, but it's a "Further information:" extension of the reviewing guideline, section "Imposing your personal criteria", whoch reads: Enthusiasm in wanting an article to be the best it can be is admirable, but take care not to impose conditions for passing the article, perhaps based on your own stylistic preferences, that exceed the criteria [...] be careful that you do not wrongly require compliance with any guideline that is not specifically mentioned by the Good article criteria.). No, really, you shouldn't ever do any GA review with such an attitude. I mean it. I don't review because I don't feel qualified because of my imperfect English. You shouldn't, becuase you don't know the rules, and once you're informed you just flatly chose to ignore them. And you just can't do this. --Niemti (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are upset that your article did not pass the GA criteria (especially #2), but it is very immature to start ranting against the reviewer.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it passes especially #2 (as "it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[3] and it contains no original research"), and this is NOT for connected with quickfailing anyway (which is for "The article completely lacks reliable sources"). And if you don't want to review it, I insist that you should change change reviewers, and in future to also restrain from reviewing any others, unless you agree to comply with the good article criteria (the real ones) and editing guideline for reviewing good articles, instead of "ignoring" them completely, or changing their meaning whenever you feel so. --Niemti (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers concerns are entirely valid. How can you possibly think Facebook and YouTube are acceptable sources that you can just toss around? There are exceptions where they are okay but they can usually be replaced. Maybe you should just withdraw the rest of your articles as I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria. There's a reason no one is reviewing yours. Wizardman 15:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are acceptable sources according to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (some of which I've linked and I even directly cited). And I'm convinced you do not understand GA criteria (and what they are not). And if it's because you failed to check what kind of "Facebook and YouTube" it is, it's official Capcom's account for the game and a statement posted by Capcom PR employee in the name of the game's producer (which goes to official content "about themselves and their activities" that are not "unduly self-serving" etc.)[11] and an official interview from people who are doing quite a lot of them (including with such celebrities like Cameron Diaz or Kate Winslet).[12] And no, the video is not violating anyone's copyrights (which is what "WP:YOUTUBE" is actually about, and to cite this again: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites", emphasis mine). --Niemti (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and YT and FB are now used so much on Wikipedia, and are so accepted, that were have even helpful templates for them to use in the external links sections: Template:Facebook and Template:YouTube (with "Do not use this template to link to material that violates copyright law", which is the only real issue concerning YT videos specifically). I hope you learned something new today, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful templates to link to something in an external links section does not even come close to verifying a claim that YouTube and Facebook are accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia. There are also templates to link to Wiktionary, IMDB and "official websites"; this does not magically make them reliable. As if being patronising wasn't bad enough, you could at least put some effort into saying things that are correct. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I'm not making any claim about the propriety of the links. I'm making a claim about the stupidity of your arguments. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Stupidity" of "my arguments"? This argument "WP:YOUTUBE" (which is indeed about external links, but also mentions how YT is actually not "blanket banned" on Wikipedia, but should be always checked for not breaking copyrights), along with was not even originally brought by me to this discussion, but by dearest Mr. Stalker Mine in one of the links at the top (but I won't object regarding "stupidity" of that). Anyway: there's nothing that makes these particular sources un-reliable just because of the platform used. --Niemti (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was not even put forward by my stalker - it was an admin: [13] but still supposedly relevant, and so-readily accepted by the reviewer. --Niemti (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]