Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bommarillu/1
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 • • GAN review not found
- Result: no consensus. The nominator has raised issues with the article, especially the sourcing. However these concerns are rather vague and generalised. A list of sources that the nominator considers unreliable has been provided, but as has been pointed out by another editor, there appears to be no clear consensus about their reliability. In the absence of progress on this the only outcome can be no consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC).
- No pictures
- Bolding problems in Cast section
- Unconventional Soundtrack section with POV comments for each song
- Almost all references are from websites considered unreliable in other Indian GA reviews, with for example, heavy reliance on Idlebrain.com
BollyJeff || talk 19:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. There is OR in the soundtrack section, I checked the first 10 refs and 2 were dead, extrapolating there will probably be 10 or so dead links, no opinion on the reliablity of the refs that are there. This needs fixing or it'll be delisted. The pictures and bolding aren't a problem. Szzuk (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to me that the OR parts of the soundtrack section can simply be removed; that would only leave the potential references issue. Bollyjeff, it would probably be helpful to point to the reviews where the sources were foun to be not reliable (and the context in which they were used). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a review that blasted a lot of sources, and it has pointers on how to identify good/bad sources as well. Maybe this reviewer was too tough, but others have expressed similar feelings? BollyJeff || talk 09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah possibly a bit tough, but that's not uncommon. I think that if nobody's ready to fix the article or to respond to what's being said here, the only sensible option left is to delist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a review that blasted a lot of sources, and it has pointers on how to identify good/bad sources as well. Maybe this reviewer was too tough, but others have expressed similar feelings? BollyJeff || talk 09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just a reminder that the GA criteria do not prohibit dead URLs... which is a good thing, because editors need to comply with WP:DEADREF even in GAs.
- Seems to me that the OR parts of the soundtrack section can simply be removed; that would only leave the potential references issue. Bollyjeff, it would probably be helpful to point to the reviews where the sources were foun to be not reliable (and the context in which they were used). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delist per above. No one's trying to fix it up, and most of the sources are terrible. The lack of picture is also telling. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I added an image, but I want to know why you say that the sources are terrible? I was told by WhatamIdoing that sources should not be deemed as always bad, and their validity varies depending on the content that they are sourcing. Ever heard of this? See the last point here. BollyJeff || talk 18:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Szzuk that the formatting and absence of images is irrelevant. I'm not sure what the lack of an image is supposed to be telling us: Maybe that some Wikipedian is slightly more scrupulous about copyvios than necessary? That would be a nice change of pace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and fixed some of the formatting issues that were considered unimportant by some. Now we just need to deal with sourcing issue. BollyJeff || talk 13:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Aganin, the article doesn't look that bad now you've edited it. Again the main issue for me is sourcing. All dodgy sources should be replaced. What fails these three articles is sourcing. I think they now just scrape it aside from that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I note that User:Ncmvocalist has delisted this article with these edits,[1], [2] and [3], which I have reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why revert, was the procedure wrong? Do I have to do it? Help. BollyJeff || talk 13:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please take a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/archiving, which is in the bottom panel of header of the GAR page. Click show to see all of the guideline. Basically, I reverted beacuse there was no proper closing of the GAR by a non-involved editor. The GAR has only been there 3 weeks, the guideline says a minimum of 4 and as User:Bollyjeff has been involved in the discussion, they certainly shouldn't be closing it. I will take a look when another seven days have passed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- It would help if the references which are considered unreliable were to be tagged with {{unreliable source}}. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- As stated above, I have seen reviews where the reviewer said many sources (there is a list here) are not to be used. Another editor commented as such above too. This article uses many of those sources multiple times. I have also been told by another editor above that sources cannot be blacklisted, but must be reviewed on an individual use basis. I don't know how that is supposed to work, but there is a real discrepancy in review style here. BollyJeff || talk 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Basically the reliability of a source depends on the information it is supporting. If Joe Blogs writes a Blog saying that the Earth is flat, then it can't be used to support a sentence stating that the Earth is indeed flat. It could be used (as long as we are certain Joe Blogs is writing the Blog) to say that "Joe Blogs wrote that 'the Earth is flat' on his blog". Whether Joe Blogs opinion is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia is a separate (and important) issue to whether the source is reliable or not. Care also needs to be taken to make sure any statement is not taken out of context (it could quite easily be a joke or sarcastic reference). AIRcorn (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well it is time for the nominator to shit or get off the pot. The nominator needs to tag the references which they consider unreliable as that appears to be the only unresolved issue. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- You are very rude to use that kind of language here. No, I will not tag more than half of the references in the article, and I will not rewrite it to say "Jeevi from Idlebrain.com said this and that". I have provided a list of suspect sources two times already; here is a third: IndiaGlitz, Andhra Cafe, IdleBrain, Andhrakaburlu, Upperstall, Cinegoer, Kollytalk, Bollywood.allindiansite, Nowrunning, Indiglamour, Radiosargam, KeralaDaily, Behinwoods. Now, there is another reviewer that has agreed to examine the state of this GAR and close it out after the fourth week here. Let's just wait for other comments until then. BollyJeff || talk 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I read the reviews that you say indicate the refs are unreliable. The discussion appears to say nothing conclusive at all and be somewhat irrelvant to this GAR. I have no way of checking the reliablity of those refs myself and don't know enough about the culture to even guess. Szzuk (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- You are very rude to use that kind of language here. No, I will not tag more than half of the references in the article, and I will not rewrite it to say "Jeevi from Idlebrain.com said this and that". I have provided a list of suspect sources two times already; here is a third: IndiaGlitz, Andhra Cafe, IdleBrain, Andhrakaburlu, Upperstall, Cinegoer, Kollytalk, Bollywood.allindiansite, Nowrunning, Indiglamour, Radiosargam, KeralaDaily, Behinwoods. Now, there is another reviewer that has agreed to examine the state of this GAR and close it out after the fourth week here. Let's just wait for other comments until then. BollyJeff || talk 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well it is time for the nominator to shit or get off the pot. The nominator needs to tag the references which they consider unreliable as that appears to be the only unresolved issue. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Basically the reliability of a source depends on the information it is supporting. If Joe Blogs writes a Blog saying that the Earth is flat, then it can't be used to support a sentence stating that the Earth is indeed flat. It could be used (as long as we are certain Joe Blogs is writing the Blog) to say that "Joe Blogs wrote that 'the Earth is flat' on his blog". Whether Joe Blogs opinion is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia is a separate (and important) issue to whether the source is reliable or not. Care also needs to be taken to make sure any statement is not taken out of context (it could quite easily be a joke or sarcastic reference). AIRcorn (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- As stated above, I have seen reviews where the reviewer said many sources (there is a list here) are not to be used. Another editor commented as such above too. This article uses many of those sources multiple times. I have also been told by another editor above that sources cannot be blacklisted, but must be reviewed on an individual use basis. I don't know how that is supposed to work, but there is a real discrepancy in review style here. BollyJeff || talk 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- It would help if the references which are considered unreliable were to be tagged with {{unreliable source}}. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please take a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/archiving, which is in the bottom panel of header of the GAR page. Click show to see all of the guideline. Basically, I reverted beacuse there was no proper closing of the GAR by a non-involved editor. The GAR has only been there 3 weeks, the guideline says a minimum of 4 and as User:Bollyjeff has been involved in the discussion, they certainly shouldn't be closing it. I will take a look when another seven days have passed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
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.