Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Slender Man/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Serendipodous (talk | contribs) at 23:39, 31 March 2024 (→‎Slender Man). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Slender Man

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

My main concern is reliable sourcing (2b) and due weight in the "References in media" section, where the listings seem to include every media reference regardless of importance, and include unsourced statements, primary sources, and fanwiki sources.

Besides that, the article structure is unorthodox. The "History" L2 contains the entirely-unrelated-to-history "Description" L3. "Folkloric qualities", "Copyright", and "References in media" are all at least unusual L2 headings. ~ A412 talk! 16:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured. As for the media section, how does one decide which inclusion is worthy? Serendipodous 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements to the article structure.
Regarding the media section, it's an essay, but WP:IPCEXAMPLES is a good guide on this stuff, and basically says that the work should be significant, the mention should be significant, and that the mention should have been noted by reliable sources. ~ A412 talk! 20:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concretely going through a couple examples from the article, if that helps:
  • Minecraft Endermen: This one is probably fine, as a significant element of a popular game, but ideally we'd have better sourcing than igxpro.com, which appears to be a blog reposting social media speculation. [1] [2]
  • Lost Girl: This one is fine, seems to be a major element of a popular television episode, sourced to RS.
  • "Sympathy for Slender Man": This one's very shaky. A filler short; the cited source doesn't actually say anything other that hosting the short.
  • My Little Pony: This isn't a significant mention. As the text indicates, it is a "brief cameo". ~ A412 talk! 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • +Article doesn't even have reception section; which is important for every fictional character articles. Same issue with Michael Myers. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "reception" section would have been easier ten years ago. Nowadays the Slender Man is a forgotten and discredited meme tied forever to an act of senseless violence. Serendipodous 15:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the references in media title should be renamed as "In popular culture". Also, that section shouldn't be written like that. Article a little bit outdated as it seems? and there are still unsourced claim. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What unsourced claims? Serendipodous 23:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Slender_Man/1&oldid=1216598104"