Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Elderly Instruments
Moved from main page
[edit]Comment I think me and a bot were the only ones to check this article during peer review. That happened pretty quickly, and I commented on the talk page, since I'm a novice at peer review. Laser brain copied my comments to the peer review, then closed it. The article was never submitted for good article review. I'm not sure, but I think it needs to go through good article before going for featured article. (Sorry if I'm wrong about this -- just please correct me kindly.) Many of the article's sources are not available online, so I think others who have access to the sources should confirm the article before it gets featured status. I like what Laser brain has written, but I can't verify what he's written. It's not that I don't trust him, but Wiki articles need to be independently verified, and I can't do that. We need editors who can check and verify the sources used in his article before making it a featured article. --Edibility (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Edibility - first of all, thanks again for your peer review. I closed the peer review per policy (when the article became an FAC) because I didn't think any more reviews were forthcoming. To your second point, articles are not required to pass through GA before coming here. Since I believe the article is at FA quality, I brought it here. To your third point, sources are not required to be accessible online. Plenty of featured articles are sourced to books or journals not available online. I got most of my sources through my library search. Anyone with access to a public library can verify my sources. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto to all that. Peer review should be closed to come to FAC, GAC is not a necessary step, and sources don't need to be available online. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sources don't need to be online, of course But if they're not online, we need editors to verify the info sourced from non-online sources. For this article, I can't do that. Many sources are not available online. I appreciate very much all the work that Laser brain has done, but someone besides Laser brain or me needs to check this article against cited publications. I can't do that, because I don't have the publications he cites. I can't confirm most of the citations. Just want to let you know that I can't confirm the citations. --Edibility (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Edibility, I understand what you are saying, but comments you make here are construed as objections to the article obtaining featured status. Sources being available online, and indeed, sources being checked by a third party is not a requirement for featured status. The requirement is that facts are sourced and can be checked by interested editors - that is a general policy for all of Wikipedia. I would appreciate your striking your comments about online sources here, since they are not related to the pursuit of featured status. --Laser brain (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Concern Why this rush to Featured Article status? I only stated that I cannot verify the sources. [Update: online OR at my local library] I never said that online sources are not OK in Wikipedia. I said that those who have access to the sources should check them before the article is promoted to Featured status. You say this isn't necessary. Okay. No prob. But I'm concerned that Laser brain is trying very hard and quickly to push this article to Featured Status with little time for evaluation. The article is a borderline advertisement for Elderly Instruments with many uncited statements and marketing terms. Laser brain is the only significant contributor to this article.
- I'm not sure which comments I'm asked to strike out above.
- I'm a novice at all this, so feel free to ignore my comments and questions in deciding whether to make this a Featured Article. --Edibility (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, Edibility. You are free to make any comments you like. Offline fact-checking would be ideal, but it is simply not feasible given Wikipedia's structure and volunteer manpower (ie. too many articles, too few willing volunteers). Nobody said Featured Articles were perfect, they're just the best we can do given our resources. The general practice for fact-checking now is to review the available references for anything funny. If there is, then bring it to the nominator's attention. --maclean 06:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Edibility, I understand what you are saying, but comments you make here are construed as objections to the article obtaining featured status. Sources being available online, and indeed, sources being checked by a third party is not a requirement for featured status. The requirement is that facts are sourced and can be checked by interested editors - that is a general policy for all of Wikipedia. I would appreciate your striking your comments about online sources here, since they are not related to the pursuit of featured status. --Laser brain (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sources don't need to be online, of course But if they're not online, we need editors to verify the info sourced from non-online sources. For this article, I can't do that. Many sources are not available online. I appreciate very much all the work that Laser brain has done, but someone besides Laser brain or me needs to check this article against cited publications. I can't do that, because I don't have the publications he cites. I can't confirm most of the citations. Just want to let you know that I can't confirm the citations. --Edibility (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto to all that. Peer review should be closed to come to FAC, GAC is not a necessary step, and sources don't need to be available online. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)