Talk:Squatters' riot/GA1

GA Review

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

Before I do a more stringent GAR, I must point out that the article relies almost entirely on one source; the Severson publication. Further sources must be located if this article is to be GA. Please see WP:GACR and WP:RGA for further guidelines for Good Articles. —Ed!^(talk) 00:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll get right on it. I have a second Sacramento history source that may have information, and I may be able to access a few online resources as well. Sorry I didn't take this into consideration earlier. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 08:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've balanced the Severson and Avella publications. How does it look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, generally, an article based entirely on book sources relies on 3-5 book publications at minimum. The issue to avoid here is systematic bias from the narrow viewpoint of a few books. Reliable websites are also recommended. In general an article of this nature still needs more than just two books, per other GA precedents. Is there any way more books/websites can be found? —Ed!^(talk) 05:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've exhausted most of the relevant county library resources on Sacramentan history, although the ones in Sacramento County itself may have something. I just checked Google, and on my first and cursory check I wasn't able to find anything viable. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will not be able to access the Sacramento County resources for an undefined period of time that will likely last more than a few months. Would it be best if I withdrew the nomination until then? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the best idea. Though Wikipedia policies generally don't name a "bare minimum" number of sources, WP:GNGA says articles must be "well supported" by a "variety" of sources. I am primarily concerned that information from only two sources has the strong possibility of biasing the article, or giving undue weight to any opinions within them. I really wouldn't feel comfortable passing a GA with only two resources, though one of this size gan generally get by with 4-5. However, GA is, of course, not an exact science, and if you can find another GA reviewer who can attest to two resources being all right, I would consider changing this view. —Ed!^(talk) 14:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I think that it is best the GAN listing be removed. Besides, I am working on the History of Sacramento, California as well, and that article could really use the extra references that you recommend for the Squatters' Riot. I'll postpone GAN on both articles until I can acquire additional resources.

Thank you for taking up the review, though. I truly appreciate your time. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem at all. Just remember to address these concerns next time you nominate for GA. —Ed!^(talk) 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]