Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Earthsuit/1

Earthsuit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: List as GA per improvements made and consensus below. Geometry guy 11:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article recently failed GAN over one reference, here. The reference is an interview conducted by a Christian online-store with the band. Jezhotwells, the reviewer, felt the interview did not constitute a reliable source simply because it was conducted by an online-store, "As a commercial organisation statements on its web site are likely to be promotional material for the merchandise it is selling, thus it is not a reliable source." However, I cite the statements of the band members in the interview and not one statement from the store. In fact, numerous interviews with other established Contemporary Christian music bands have been conducted by the site, here. I believe the interview is justly used in the article and the GA should pass. Thanks -- Noj r (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I think the site looks like a reliable source. There are definitely potential bias pitfalls from using commerical sites or interviews, but the article avoids them: The interview is used to source statements about themselves, none of it seems controversial, and most are in quotes, making it aobvious that it is not objective fact, but the bands own view.Yob Mod 07:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I reviewed this article. The reference in question [1] is used to support seven statements in the article. The interviewer, Jen Abbas, has written a book, Generation ex : adult children of divorce and the healing of our pain, but doesn't appear to have published other interviews or articles on music in reliable press sources. A lot of the statements cited to this source could be supported by allmusic [2] or christianity today [3]. I just don't think a book/muisc store artcile is an RS, a bit like the way we traet Amazon and Borders as no reliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the interview was hosted on another site, say Jesus Freak Hideout (a source referenced by Billboard), would it be any less reliable? I fail to see how the interview is unreliable simply because an online-store conducted it. The store is obviously widely trusted because numerous bands accepted interviews with them, here. I will say this Jezhotwells, I did not notice that Christianity Today biography. I will see if I can possibly replace the interview and end this discussion. Regardless, I still see nothing wrong with the interview's inclusion. Update: I looked over the references again and the interview remains substantial. For example, none of the other references mention how Adam and Paul met. -- Noj r (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was also surprised to find a Christian book store being used as a source. However, this is a Christian Rock band, and the reliability of a source should be judged against the statements it is being used to source. In this case, they are either quotations (which I think it is safe to assume are endorsed by the band) or uncontroversial matters of fact, so I don't see a major GA problem here (it would almost certainly be a problem at FA, so why not fix as much as you can now?). I did notice, however, that "Drummer David Hutchison was recruited sometime after the EP's recording" is a somewhat vague and misleading interpretation of the source material: "About two years ago we met Hutch, our drummer, through another mutual friend." It might also be helpful to present a specific attribution somewhere in the text ("In an interview with Family Christian Stores..."), so that readers know the nature of the source being cited. Geometry guy 23:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with Geometry guy's suggestion of tightening up the specifics and attricuting the source. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made some changes per your suggestions, Geometry Guy. Perhaps it is looking better? -- Noj r (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an improvement. I made a tweak, but I'm mostly just facilitating here. I'm sure Jezhotwells will comment on whether there are other issues to address. Geometry guy 22:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think we have now got a good article. What should I do? Amend my failure into a pass or start a new reassessemnt and pass it as GA? Jezhotwells (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usual thing would be to close this reassessment as "List as GA", add it to article history and list the article. I don't mind doing that, but I usually wait a day or so to be sure that no one has any objections. You are welcome to do it too, since the reason for this reassessment (a disagreement between nominator and reviewer) has been resolved and no further unresolved GA issues have been raised. Geometry guy 22:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]