User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2022/May

FAR for Supernova

I have nominated Supernova for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BloatedBun (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I undid your undo

You very recently undid a "touchup" revision I made on of the article on the top quark. Kindly "back off". Your opinion that it is "mostly pointless" is validly your opinion, but not a legitimate reason for erasing another editor's changes. 107.127.18.32 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Undone again, take it to the talk page (see WP:BRD). These are not improvements and your are messing with long-established articles (including Featured articles) with a well established style for no reason. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

About deleting marked as predatory sources

Hello. As I think there is no need to delete immediately all the predatory sources from the new article if they are marked as bad and their information is correct (there is no obviously wrong information in the deleted review). I try to substitute them, but it is not so easy to find another sources for such a common information. If they were deleted it would be hard to check information because it is not marked as without the sources. I use those marks to find better sources. Moreover Mahasen L.M.A. has been published in one more journal that might be reliable ([1]). So the probably can be treated as expert (WP:SELFPUB), but an expertise would be needed. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Predatory sources are not reliable (they are at best something equivalent to SPS, and that's if you can corroborate the claims of a predatory journal through other reliable sources, see WP:VANPRED). If the only thing that supports a claim is a predatory journal, the information is not verified through reliable sources. This is critically important for WP:MEDRS claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the cn template that you added, missed it. The information is marked as without sources so it's ok. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)