Talk:Skeptic's Toolbox

Page launched - Editor bias stated

I'm happy to launch the brand new Skeptic's Toolbox Wikipedia page. The Toolbox is the longest running skeptic conference, and dates back to the beginning of the modern scientific skepticism movement. It long deserves its own WP page. I want to be clear that I have attended the Toolbox several times, dating back to 2002, thus the reason I have pictures going way back. I attended the Toolbox in 2012 in order to finish the research needed to launch this page. Unbeknownst to me, I had been selected as a winner of the In The Trenches Award at the 2012 event. I did not seek out to have this bias, but I wasn't about to disappoint the group and not accept this honor, and neither was I going to delete the months of work I've been doing on the Toolbox page. While writing these pages I have become familiar with all the participants and faculty of the conference. I respectively stand by my writing, and welcome anyone who wants to review the page and make sure to take out anything that looks like it is biased. As with all the pages I write, I'm moving on to work on other WP pages, this one is for you. Sgerbic (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

GA

I enjoyed the article, and nominated it to GA. Tomer T (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Skeptic's Toolbox/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 00:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Interesting article, no obvious copyvios, images adequately sourced, just a couple of points:

• CFI is a redirect.

• Have you a citation for the information in the table?

• Possible over-use of primary sources with youtube - has anyone written about these? I'm guessing this is alright for the direct quotes however.

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the redirect for CFI. The table contents do not have citations unless I just cite past URL's to their websites. But I believe that several of the workshops were before the Internet. Don't know how to cite these other than that. I have a copy of every brochure which is how I know all the information is correct. As far as the YouTube videos, the history of the Skeptic's Toolbox is again something that happened before the Internet. No one thought to record their history. So I created interviews with the people responsible so that there would be a citation. Nothing like getting the citation directly from the mouth of the person. Sadly we are going to lose a lot of our history if we don't start collecting the information. What else do you need? Sgerbic (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Just realized how nice it is to see another skeptic editing WP :) This made me realize you didn't actually define "Skeptic" anywhere which I didn't notice the first time, you might want to somewhere near the top. I'm impressed with the amount of work you must have done for those videos - ideally secondary sources would be preferred but they seem suitable enough for the non-controversial subject matter. If possible could you add the website URL, title and date retrieved as a citation for the content in the table where it is available and also listing a catalog offline as a reference is fine as long as you specify enough information (title, author, publisher, date, page etc.) that one could check the reference. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I've linked to scientific skepticism article on the first line after the lede, I think that seems appropriate. As far as citations for the table, none exist other than the paper flyers that I own. No catalog of all the toolboxes exist unless you are speaking of this WP article. Even SI magazine does not have a list of all the toolboxes.Sgerbic (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would. Sorry, I didn't mean catalog, I meant brochure - is there any way you could cite them as the source for the information?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No idea how I would do that? I don't think I've ever seen a brochure citation. Does that even exist?Sgerbic (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of using {{Cite book}} to cite it as if it were a book and fill as many of the fields as you can.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll give it a try tomorrow night.Sgerbic (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent - there doens't seem to be anything else stopping me from passing it at this point, though I'll run through it all again for the ticklist.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 01:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

All done! Enjoyed working with you, please consider my other pages. Even if they do not stand up to GA status they will at least be improved through your comments.Sgerbic (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

So it is now officially a GA. Are you referring to the ones listed on your userpage? I'd be happy to have a look and improve them up to GA if possible.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Gilderien. That is really cool, just saw that only one in 253 get this. I've written a few other pages and so have some friends of mine. I'm not sure which ones I would recommend as I know you probably have a backlog. Off the top of my head are Mary Roach, Indre Viskontas, Jerry Andrus, Barry Beyerstein, James Alcock and Loren Pankratz. I spend a lot of my time training others to edit, that is why I'm really happy to get feedback to improve my skills. Oh yeah, can't forget Ray Hyman.Sgerbic (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok I do a bit but I will have a look at them in the new year, probably after my exams (25 onwards).--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Skeptic's Toolbox/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

 Comment: On sources: WP:SPS and WP:BIASED. On coverage, reads like a promotional pamphlet. Section on faculty, long list taking most of the article, and use of too many images at bottom unnecessarily would not pass GAN if nominated nowadays.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

No comments from other editors, closing as fail. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

added past tense, as the Toolbox has not met in several years.

2024 update - added past tense, as the Toolbox has not met in several years. IntegrityForever (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)