Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South African Scout Association/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [1].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that it offers good factual information about the subject. The article has also had GA status for approximately 2 years and has reached a very stable state. -- YiS, Jediwannabe 14:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.innestech.co.za/sascoutforum/default.asp deadlinks
- http://www.scouting.org.za/kzn deadlinks
- I note with concern that a large number of the references are from the South African Scouting organization itself. I note this for other reviewers to be alert for possible bias.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comments -
- Just wish to answer the question from Ealdgyth
- http://www.sossi.org/index.shtml -> Not sure about this one.
- http://www.scouting.milestones.btinternet.co.uk/index.htm -> Gives sources of information
- http://www.pinetreeweb.com/ -> Gives sources of information
- http://n2zgu.50megs.com/RSA.htm -> Whilst the information that is given on the page 'seems' to be accurate, the quote that seems to be referenced to the page in the article does not actually appear on the page. Removed.
Unfortunately a large number of available sources on the organisation are published by the organisation. -- YiS, Jediwannabe 06:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. If they are self-published sources, they need to meet a higher hurdle, see WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the pinetreeweb.com and milestones references in favour of the actual printed sources of the information. I still can't get any verification regarding the sossi reference, will keep looking. -- YiS, Jediwannabe 20:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. If they are self-published sources, they need to meet a higher hurdle, see WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.