Wikipedia:Peer review/Teabagging/archive1

Teabagging

I think this could use a peer review. Some of the problems with the article include: unverified statements, use of sources of questionable reliability, collections of trivial occurrences of teabagging, and the article detracting from the subject matter at hand slightly in places. I don't know if this ever could get good article status. I don't think it's possible at the moment, as I'm not sure exactly what a WP:RS is to this day, but notability is cumulative, I guess.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are right, the majority of references used are dubious. Urban Dictionary is useless as a source since there is no quality control or guard against hoaxes. Also, I don't know the policy on YouTube links but there might be a copyright issue with the clips linked to. There may be a similar problem with the "seeklyrics" reference, which, like many other lyrics sites, is probably a copyright violation. Finally, many of the other sites used like AskTaco, SexDictionary, etc are of questionable notability. Teabagging is certainly a valid phenomenon, but finding reliable sources will be your biggest obstacle to GA, and unfortunately I'm not sure how many actually exist. Even finding a couple of print sources on Google Books (if there are any) to replace some of the aforementioned sources would help. Enok^talk 13:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I just found five results, four of which were relevant, on Google Books.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and we don't talk of the "notability" of websites with regard to using them as a source... we talk about whether they are reliable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)