Wikipedia:Peer review/Satisfied (album)/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want the subsequent FA nom to go more smoothly.
Thanks, Zeagler (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://lifeway.edgeboss.net/download/lifeway/stores/podcasts/LCSPodcast127.mp3
- Audio interview with band
- http://www.imeem.com/people/PeA-5rI/music/ZB6ZRmAd/cleft_in_the_rock_radio_hotline_decemberadio_eric_miker/
- Audio interview with band member
- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=14481114 (and any other myspace sites)
- Does not violate WP:SELFPUB (I had to show this earlier to be able to link to the site – [1])
- http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/interviews/DecembeRadio2008.asp (and any other from this site)
- Well known site in CCM – been referenced by HM [2] and is a member of the Gospel Music Association [3] (the latter also mentions that JfH has been recognized in CCM Magazine). Also, major record labels have granted JfH permission to stream numerous newly released albums on their site [4], something they'd undoubtedly refuse to do if JfH published interviews that never took place.
- http://www.tollbooth.org/2008/reviews/decradio.html (and others from this site)
- Quoted/referred to in a handful of articles at CCM Magazine's website [5]. Linked by Calvin College [6]. Artists' press releases find it worthy of mention, as well [7][8]. —Zeagler (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- http://lifeway.edgeboss.net/download/lifeway/stores/podcasts/LCSPodcast127.mp3
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- To determine the reliability 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 reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- You can't just say "audio interview with the band" without addressing the reliablity of the website hosting the interview and the person conducting the interview. As for the myspace stuff, why does it not violate WP:SPS? A link to the discussion would help. Why is CCM important enough that mentions in the magazine would establish the reliablity of another site? You're going to want more than just one or two references for this information, you need a number of different sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Re: audio interviews – The information used in the article is not coming from the interviewer, but the artist. I guess I don't see what the problem is...are we afraid that the interviewee might be an imposter because the hosting site is not well known?
- (Web page for LifeWay interview, if that's helpful... [9])
- (Web page for Cleft in the Rock Radio, if that's helpful... [10])
- Re: myspace – ...because DecembeRadio are experts on their own goings-on. Thus, we move on to WP:SELFPUB, and there's no issue there. There's nothing "unduly self-serving" about recording dates/locations or the names of opening bands, which is all that's being supported.
- Re: CCM Magazine – quotes from/mentions of reviews in The Phantom Tollbooth are used by the magazine to show that the albums in question are generating significant press coverage (in the Christian music world). Other publications being name-dropped alongside The Phantom Tollbooth are print magazines...certainly none of them are blogs or SPS.
- Tell me if I'm getting warmer on any of these. :) —Zeagler (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with interviews isn't worry that it's an imposter, it's the reliablity of the site hosting the interview and the person conducting it. While it's unlikely, it's always possible that the interview has been edited badly, or that it's faked. The more obscure the source of the interview, the more this is possible. Granted, it's unlikely. This is why the various reliable sources guidelines and policies exist, to guard against sites that haven't proven their reliablity as far as correctly hosting and transmitting information. When we say that the New York Times is reliable, it's because they have shown throughout their history that they report the facts, and if they inadvertantly report something wrong, they will correct it. Same goes for the mainline publishing houses, they stand behind their work. At this point, I can't say that I'm seeing a lot here that shows it's reliable. Yes, it's a high hurdle, but it's designed to protect living folks (which indirectly this article is about, since I presume the band members are still alive) from wrong information being put out about them and their work. Wikipedia is the leading result on the web for most search engines, and this gives us the editors some pretty hefty responsiblity to make sure we use the best sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- More evidence for JfH: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesus_Freak_Hideout
- Would direct links from the band's official website/myspace site remove any doubt? —Zeagler (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- At this point we're into "I'll leave these concerns out for other reviewers to consider" territory. When you get to FAC, just link to this PR in your nomination, and I'll chime in there. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with interviews isn't worry that it's an imposter, it's the reliablity of the site hosting the interview and the person conducting it. While it's unlikely, it's always possible that the interview has been edited badly, or that it's faked. The more obscure the source of the interview, the more this is possible. Granted, it's unlikely. This is why the various reliable sources guidelines and policies exist, to guard against sites that haven't proven their reliablity as far as correctly hosting and transmitting information. When we say that the New York Times is reliable, it's because they have shown throughout their history that they report the facts, and if they inadvertantly report something wrong, they will correct it. Same goes for the mainline publishing houses, they stand behind their work. At this point, I can't say that I'm seeing a lot here that shows it's reliable. Yes, it's a high hurdle, but it's designed to protect living folks (which indirectly this article is about, since I presume the band members are still alive) from wrong information being put out about them and their work. Wikipedia is the leading result on the web for most search engines, and this gives us the editors some pretty hefty responsiblity to make sure we use the best sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- You can't just say "audio interview with the band" without addressing the reliablity of the website hosting the interview and the person conducting the interview. As for the myspace stuff, why does it not violate WP:SPS? A link to the discussion would help. Why is CCM important enough that mentions in the magazine would establish the reliablity of another site? You're going to want more than just one or two references for this information, you need a number of different sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- To determine the reliability 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 reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)