Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Nathan Drake (character)/archive1

As to the sources, Gamezone, Gamasutra, Shacknews, are all considered reliable by consensus per WP:VG/RS. The Doublefine posts were put up by Tim Schafer, and since they are being used to source what he said in those posts, it should be fine for this purpose. [As for not directly linking to the correct post, thank you for catching that; I'll fix that simple mistake]. The others are links to interviews of those involved with the games, and only cite things they themselves said. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This tends to trump project specific advice (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches) as the criteria for FAC is and has to be very strict. Ideally, we would like to see third-party sources using the above for information. Also, authors you consider notable do need proof as well. RB88 (T) 05:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not project specific advice. The page is a list of sources which have been determined through consensus (mainly during the FAC process and direct inquiry into site editorial processes) to be reliable. Consensus on the site says they are reliable. Addressing Venturebeat, the New York Times features their articles often on their website. The author used as well, Takahashi, has been a reporter on video games for the San Jose Mercury News, the Wall Street Journal, the Red Herring, the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register and the Dallas Times Herald. Also, with respect to the doublefine source, something written by Schafer should be considered reliable when all that it is being used to source is Schafer's statements. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the bitmob article is a recognized reporter in the field of video gaming. Dan Hsu has been an editor for 1UP Network and editor-in-chief for Electronic Gaming Monthly. I have removed the PSU reference, however. Also, us.playstation.com is indeed owned by Sony, and affiliated with them. The various disclaimers on the site constantly refer to the operator of the site as "Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA)" Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor flaw - I don't know of any Robert Lemarchand working for Naughty Dog. You might want to correct that to Richard (character design). Also, I'd recommend another look at the prose in that section overall. It's generally up to scratch, but I spy a couple of grammatical errors in there. --Monere (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch; it is fixed now. The article is currently undergoing a copyedit by Baffle gab1978; he has begun, but only done the lead thus far. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third party links proving the reliability of the sources I have singled out and the authors you claim are notable are still required for me to strike my oppose. Use the dispatch pointers I provided. RB88 (T) 03:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by third party sources? The signpost article you linked to gives the advice that reliability may be established by checking how information is gathered according to the site's about page: "If a site has an "about us" page, "contact us" or FAQ page, check those for information about how the site gathers information". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did look through all sources I deemed questionable, and then put up the list of those I couldn't find information about. At this stage, you need to provide third-party sources (e.g. BBC, USA Today etc) that uses their information, or a previous FAC where consensus was established, or a page which details their editorial structure and peer review, or info that each source is backed by a reputable publisher. RB88 (T) 04:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]