Wikipedia:Peer review/Ricky Rodriguez/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've tried to get this article peer reviewed, but someone responded to it and I think it messed up the process because it got archived.
Anyway. I'm basically looking for feedback to improve the article. All (to my knowledge) available information has been included in this article, and I want to see what might need a repair.
Thanks, NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 01:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, NowIsntItTime. I've given the article just an initial look, so I will start with some things I spotted quickly and circle back with some more comments after a detailed read-through:
- The article is inconsistent about what date format is used. Since Rodriguez was from Spain but lived with an American family, you could use either day-month-year or month-day-year, but you should pick one and do it consistently.
- Footnote 24 is a dead link, you should see if there is an updated URL or an archive you could use.
- Footnote 15 appears to be to an article in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, but the citation details are jumbled.
- The phrase "End Times" is in a couple of places pipe-linked to Armageddon, which is a place, not a time or event. This seems to go against WP:EGG. A plain link would redirect to the End times article, which seems like a reasonable destination.
- I spotted at least one instance where "The Family" was rendered as "the Family". I'm no expert on the group, but my understanding is that it is usually referred to with the (non-standard) capitalization of "The Family".
- There some citations to news sources with no links and no page numbers. If these were online news, there should be links (even if the link is now dead). If they were print news, there should be page numbers. You could even have both, but having neither creates a verification difficulty. I noticed this on at least footnotes 1, 27, and 28; there might be others that I didn't spot.
- More to come. --RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your initial comments, @RL0919:. I fixed the format, and updated as many footnotes as I could; however it was saved by the Cult Education Institute, not the original publisher or Web Archive. Does this pose a problem? Another big issue is that the citations 27 and 28 are not available on a newspaper archive at all, so I can't find or add the pages. I did happen to find web link archives for 27 and 28, but as you can see they are dead links that only proved they existed once. What should I do about this? Does this mean I have to remove these citations because they're not verifiable?
- I fixed the End Times link, as well as The Family's lack of capitalization. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 21:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- An archive in a neutral location would be better than one on an advocacy website, but at least it provides an opportunity to see the content. For the pages with no archives, it looks like the Palo Verde Valley Times text is reproduced here (another advocacy site archive). The URL for the Tucson Citzen looks like it may have been a website-only piece; the print issue for that date is available on Newspapers.com and doesn't contain the cited article. So that may need to be removed. In theory a print source is verifiable without a link, but a non-archived deadlink for a web-only source is essentially unverifiable. --RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, @RL0919:. I changed it to the advocacy site archive. I also found another exfamily archive for the Tucson Citizen article displaying the full text and the page it was taken from. I also fixed the last dead links in this article, so every citation has a web link.
- Awaiting your further comments then :) -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 15:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- An archive in a neutral location would be better than one on an advocacy website, but at least it provides an opportunity to see the content. For the pages with no archives, it looks like the Palo Verde Valley Times text is reproduced here (another advocacy site archive). The URL for the Tucson Citzen looks like it may have been a website-only piece; the print issue for that date is available on Newspapers.com and doesn't contain the cited article. So that may need to be removed. In theory a print source is verifiable without a link, but a non-archived deadlink for a web-only source is essentially unverifiable. --RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)