Wikipedia:Peer review/Wikipedia/archive7

Wikipedia edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback before starting a GAN.

Thanks, EpicPupper (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @EpicPupper! I'd like to see the citations moved out of the lead section. Everything in the lead section should be in the body sections with citations there, so there shouldn't be anything in the lead section that needs a citation. (Exception for anything so controversial that it would cause constant questions). Check to make sure the info in the lead is indeed covered in the body, with citation/s, add any citations or content that are in the lead to the sections, and then you can remove the citations from the lead. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Doing... EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: and @EpicPupper:, I disagree. The citations should be kept because they help a lot in checking if the claims are or aren't verifiable, and if the sources are reliable or not. It is important to keep them on the lead section because that's what most users read. At least these citations should be kept until the article is fully checked, and stated as good article. I recently found many issues in the article, such as use of vested and overall unreliable sources, and content in the lead section that doesn't verify with the inline citations.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hfnreiwjfd, we generally only include citations in the lead if the assertions they support are likely to be controversial. —valereee (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, off-topic

@Valereee: How many articles have citations in the lead vs how many do not? We need some statistics here. Besides, removing the citations from the lead only makes the work harder for editors trying to verify the claims and check if the sources are or aren't reliable. The citations should be kept in the lead until the article is fully checked and stated as good article.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hfnreiwjfd, Wikipedia's best articles, including today's Feature Article Fort Concho, don't have any citations at all in the lead. Go take a look. Featured articles represent the pinnacle of WP's peer review process. FAs typically don't have citations in the lead because they don't need them. Nothing should be in the lead that isn't in the article sections, and in the article sections, everything that's in the lead should be sourced. I'm afraid your arguments are against policy. You can read more about that policy at MOS:LEAD. —valereee (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Wikipedia isn't a good or featured article, so I don't get why you're using a feature article as a counter-example.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hfnreiwjfd, you'd asked how many articles don't have citations and said "we need some statistics here." In fact, we don't need statistics. We need policy, and I've shown you where that policy is. I directed you at the FA because it shows that it is not, in fact, "important to keep them on the lead section because that's what most users read." I've been patient up until now, but I think you should consider whether you're really ready to do peer review with only 79 edits. Peer reviewers need to have a pretty thorough understanding of policy. You should go work on improving articles while you gain more experience with policy. This is an issue of Wikipedia:Competence is required, and frankly an issue of WP:disruptive editing if you continue. —valereee (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I have tried to improve the article, and keeping the citations in the lead for now is super helpful for checking the claims. And what disruptive editing specifically? My edits were in good faith Wikipedia:Assume good faith.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answering at editor's talk to prevent continued disruption here. —valereee (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with valereee. I highly recommend familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's many, many other guidelines and policies. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hfnreiwjfd: This isn't how it works. The job of the GA reviewer is to ensure that everything without an in-line citation in the lead is reflected in the main body of the article. Requesting that they be preserved until the article is granted GA status is not a comment rooted in Wikipedia policy or even general matter of course. None of the information in the lead is controversial. So long as it’s properly cited in the article, they can be removed—that's the nominator's role. As they remove them, they need to go through the article and ensure they're reflected. It’s up to the reviewer to ensure they did it properly. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers: I literally found citation and verifiability issues in the lead of the Wikipedia that I had to remove (see history), which didn't reflect in the body of the article as well. What you're saying doesn't reflect the reality of the recent and current state of Wikipedia. Seemingly, nobody is currently reviewing Wikipedia for good article nomination.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're being incredibly overzealous. Firstly, there's also no need for that template to be on the article, given the ongoing discussions about the issue on the Talk, how to address them, and an active peer review. MOS:LEAD is pretty clear. If EpicPupper removed the in-line citations without first checking that they were reflected in the rest of the article, that's bad, and I would suggest they first work on smaller, less high-profile articles to work on before coming back to this one. As far as I can see, that didn't happen. So you're advocating for them to be kept when Pupper hasn't yet started work on the lead. When the nominator has reviewed the lead, and determined whether they're reflected in the article overall, then they can be removed. Which, again, is what Valereee was asking for. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers: "You're being incredibly overzealous." For real, that's the first "argument" you came up with? I'll ignore you, because you began to attack me.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning left at talk.@Hfnreiwjfd, please stop. —valereee (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're a new editor, ignoring the advice of editors to read more deeply into Wikipedia's other policies. You are being overzealous, and that isn't a personal attack. To contribute, you have to know what other guidelines are interacting with this one. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's key guidelines, but it doesn't exist in isolation. You've said other editors aren't properly responding to you, but we have linked you directly to multiple now, with no response. I'm bottling all of this this; it’s not on-topic. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Stop what? Did I do something that goes against the guidelines? What is that specifically? Why did you only said to me to stop, but not the other editor who name called me? Is this bias?Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let's take this to your talk. User talk is where we discuss behavioral issues. This discussion is for the peer review. —valereee (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: I would like to mention that many sentences are unreferenced, especially at the end of some paragraphs. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: the article has many statements self-referencing Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and so so. These statements don't make it clear in prose that the statements are according to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc, which violates WP:CIRCULAR. Also, there are paragraphs that mostly self-reference Wikipedia, which is undue weight, etc, violating WP:PRIMARY, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:WEIGHT, and so son. So these issues shall be addressed.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Hello! I'll be giving my thoughts on this article. Right now, I think the article has a few huge major failings that would (in my view) qualify it for quick fail. You can expect my comments—potentially in chunks—over the next few days. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 02:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably ask before I start. Are you still interested? It’s been two weeks since Valereee left her comments and it looks like you haven't touched at all yet. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 02:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers: Yes, I'm still interested. I've been busy lately but will get to the comments. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)} 01:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]