Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Max Weinberg/1

Max Weinberg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 addition relies on many user-published/unreliable sources. Spinixster (chat!) 10:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice on my talk page. I was the nominator of, and still am the primary contributor (72%) to this article, but I have not edited it in a number of years and took it off my watchlist and have no desire to return. Most of the article was sourced to newspaper stories and books, but yes I did use a few sources like Brucebase and a Usenet FAQ to fill things in. The irony is that those particular non-RS sites are often more careful and accurate about their subjects than sometimes carelessly-researched RS ones are. I don't know how up-to-date the article is ... besides touring with Bruce, I think he still does his Jukebox thing, but I don't know how many dates he plays, what kind of audience size he draws, what the reviews are like, anything like that. And I think he is still involved in some real estate/investment disputes? Not sure what else he's been involved with. So anyway, that's my perspective. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any actual concerns with the content or writing? As the above editor wrote, what may be in general not considered "reliable sources" are often actually reliable for content like this, and editorial judgment should outweight rigid adherence to general policies. --The Cunctator (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. User published sources aren't allowed per WP:RSSELF, even if that information actually is true. I never meant less popular magazines and newspapers, if that's what you meant, those are different. New York Post is also unreliable per WP:NYPOST. Spinixster (chat!) 11:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.