Wikipedia

User:Mike Christie/FQSR workshop

< User:Mike Christie

This page is a workshop to test the idea of splitting source reviews for featured articles from the other aspects of featured article candidacies. See WT:FAC for the original discussion. For what to check when reviewing sources, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

Goal of the workshop: determine if a source review process can be:

  • Well-defined: what is reviewed, how are reviews done, and what are the pass/fail criteria?
  • Useful: does it eliminate work elsewhere, rather than duplicating work?

Once the workshop is completed, a discussion at WT:FAC will determine whether it met these goals, and what to do next.

Participants

Five articles are being reviewed in the workshop.

Article Nominator
Lion-class battleship Sturmvogel 66
Parliament of 1327 Serial Number 54129
Roger B. Chaffee Kees08
Saving Light MicroPowerpoint
Shannen Says Aoba47

Reviewing criteria

Each article must satisfy the following criteria (parentheses refer to FACR):

  • (1c): well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
  • (2c): consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)

Reviewers

Any editor may review. Guidance on how to do a source review is available here. Reviewers are expected to make it clear that they have fully evaluated the article on both the criteria given above. When they complete their review they may either declare support or oppose, or wait for the article's editors to correct any issues before making a declaration.

Coordinators

A coordinator (there may be more than one) determines whether an article passes the source review or not. An article cannot pass source review unless at least one reviewer declares support. If more than one reviewer provides a source review, the coordinator determines if there is consensus to support. The coordinator may at their discretion ask additional questions of either the reviewer or the nominator, if they feel that the criteria have not been fully addressed. A coordinator cannot post a "Pass" or "Fail" for an article they have reviewed. For this workshop, the coordinators are the three current FAC coordinators: Ian Rose, Sarastro1, and Laser brain.

When a coordinator posts "Pass" or "Fail", the review is complete.

Other rules

In practice, we would need rules addressing renominations, time limits, and simultaneous nominations, but these discussions can be deferred until we decide if this is a process we actually want to implement.

Nominations edit

Roger B. Chaffee edit

This source review has passed. --Laser brain (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

Roger B. Chaffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominated by Kees08.

Source review by Mike Christie edit

I'm not an experienced source reviewer, and was not planning to review one of the workshop articles, but I now think it's a better test case if an inexperienced source reviewer participates, so my review is below.

Notes on 1(c).

  • The sources seem to be high quality and reliable. Chrysler & Chaffee is apparently a juvenile book, but the facts cited from it seem straightforwardly biographical and not controversial, and it's not used beyond his early training. The Burgess, Doolan, and Vis and the NASA biography and report are excellent sources. The newspaper sources look fine for the material they cover; I looked at a few of them.
  • Footnote 1 is a deadlink for me, and there is no archive link.

I have not performed spotchecks for the sources against the text.

Notes on 2(c):

  • The page ranges of the form 5-3–5-4 are ugly to look at; not an issue for FAC, but I think they might look better with a spaced en dash in the middle.
  • You have a link to our newspapers.com article in footnote 44, but not elsewhere; I'm not sure what the rule is but presumably we should either be consistent or just do this on the first appearance of a newspapers.com cite.
  • There's no requirement to add archive links, but you've done so on some of the web citations; you may wish to do so on the others.

Only two of the points above actually require attention -- footnote 1 and the newspapers.com link. Once those are addressed I will support this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Kees08, did you notice this review? Just checking. The single-page structure here doesn't make it easy to notice relevant edits on a watchlist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I did! Thank you for the review. I am in the middle of moving and ran out of data on my phone so tethering is not going so great. My replies should be straightforward, the only thing I was not sure of was the juvenile book bit. It did not seem like a juvenile book when I read it, so was wondering if worldcat or something told you it was? It could be considered one, not a big deal either way, was just curious. I flipped through my copy enough it was destroyed by use, so cannot check it until I buy a new one. Kees08 (Talk) 02:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I just had another look and can't find why I thought that; perhaps I misinterpreted a listing somewhere. Not a problem, in any case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries either way. Newspapers.com should be linked in the first instance and then not again. When I have better Internet I will move it. Archive links are a good idea, will do as well. Will check on the other couple of comments later. Kees08 (Talk) 04:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Fixed the dead url, replaced with the new location. Added archives. Moved Newspapers.com wikilink to first reference. Unfortunately the CS1 help page does not give advice on the page range and spaced endash issue. If you are sure that it is okay, I will fix them all, just wanted to make sure since it will take some time. Kees08 (Talk) 05:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
No need to change it; I think it's ugly but it's MoS-compliant, and changing it might not be. Everything else looks good, so Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 17 September 2018 (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.

Lion-class battleship edit

Lion-class battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominated by Sturmvogel 66.

Parliament of 1327 edit

This source review has passed. --Laser brain (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

Parliament of 1327 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominated by Serial Number 54129.

SR by Factotem edit

  • Refs list is properly formatted. There are a few without page numbers, but these are web pages which are not numbered, so all good.
Just noticed ref #48 cites Ormrod 2011 with no page number. A search for the quote in Gbooks preview reveals this to be p. 48. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Now ref #50. Still missing page number. Factotem (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • The location info for Goodman's 1971 edition of The Loyal Conspiracy: The Lords Appellant under Richard II looks wrong. Following the OCLC link to Worldcat indicates that it was published by "Routledge and K. Paul" of London.
Adjusted, many thanks.
Not sure I understand. Why do you need to take/upload a photo to address this? Factotem (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
??? Factotem (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I misunderstood your point, apologies.
  • St John's In the Bset Interest of the Queen: Isabella of France, Edward II and the Image of a Functional Assembly Typo.
    • Done.
  • Waugh's Edmund [Edmund of Woodstock], first earl of Kent Has no OCLC or ISBN, but the link shows that there is a doi reference that can be used.
    • As a webpage, I've never before used one.
The {{cite web}} template can take a doi= parameter. Factotem (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that; but have no idea what you are talking about.
@Factotem: Many thanks indeed for this; how do you do that then. I know dois are prominent in article refs (even the v old ones?) but no idea how you create one for webpages. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, but I didn't create the doi ref. It's displayed on the web page that you linked to in the title of the work. It turns out that your title link and the doi ref lead to the same page anyway, so not sure this was such an issue after all. I guess if the ODNB ever change their website, though, and give the page a different URL, the doi should still remain valid. Factotem (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: I filled in the other odnb doi, but impossible to find for the PROME page. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Did you use the Barnes and Noble published edition of Chrimes & Brown's Select Documents of English Constitutional History, 1307-1485 as listed in the bibliography? I ask because there's another edition published in 1961 in London by A & C Black Publishers with different pagination (422, instead of B&N's 398) which could affect ref page numbering.
    • Not sure now; but in any case, Dunham / Wood source this whole sentence.
  • The Worldcat listing for the H.M.S.O. publication Calendar of the close rolls preserved in the Public Record Office indicates that this was originally published in 1898, not 1892 as shown in the article's bibliography.
    • Done
  • Where you list Woodbridge as the publisher location, I think adding Suffolk would be appropriate.
    • Well, I can't find anything on this (again) at Template:Cite book or WP:REF; although I thought it was only usual for US states.
Someone made a similar suggestion at one of my FACs, so I'm just repeating it here. Not sure if it's a major issue. Factotem (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • External link checker does not report any problems.
    • Glad I've done something right anyway!  ;)
Actually, I've just discovered that the ext. link checker checked only the archive. The website www-british-history.ac.uk, linked to in the bibliography for Given-Wilson et. al. (2005), is down, and the archive link requires a login. There are 33 refs to this work, so it maybe needs looking into. Unfortunately the Wayback Machine doesn't appear to have archived that page. Factotem (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Extremely odd! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You provided one Gbook preview link, for Hartrich's Urban Identity and Political Rebellion: Henry of Lancaster's Revolt, 1328–29 in Ormrod's Fourteenth Century England. I check these because the Gbook previews often link to different editions of the publication to that listed in the article bibliography. This might introduce problems with page numbering in the article's refs if the pagination is different between those editions. This one, however, checks out fine. On a personal note, we're not required to provide Gbook preview links in the bibliography, and I don't, for this reason and the fact that availability varies according to your location.
    • That's very well spotted, cheers, it must have slipped through the net. I'll remove it: you might have noticed that I don't (intentionally) use Gbook links either (as you say, for the very good reasons you gave).
  • Powell & Wallis. Typo in publisher name Factotem (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • Just noticed that there are some cases of date ranges in book titles that are separated by a hyphen. Fryde's The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II 1321-1326 is just one example. I believe these should be unspaced endashes. Factotem (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Checking OCLC and ISBN links - I usually click through all OCLC/ISBN/etc. links and verify that Worldcat/Gbooks details these links lead to correspond with the details given in the article bibliography.

  • The OCLC link for Adams & Stephens's Select Documents of English Constitutional History leads directly to the Worldcat listing, but there is no publisher information in that listing. I have found this publication online, and the publisher information is listed there on the title page. Might be worth linking the title in the article's bibliography.
    • Moot now, since I've removed the work, but a good idea.
You've removed it from the bibliography, but there's still a ref (#91) to the work. Factotem (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Of course; I confused this with the similarly-titled one by Chrimes and Brown (which is removed). I've added a url link.
  • In the listing for Bradford's A Silent Presence: The English King in Parliament in the Fourteenth Century, you've provided an OCLC ref for the journal Historical Research, but this appears to be a generic reference for the journal as a whole. A search for that specific article gives us a doi reference and an issue number that are missing from the article's bibliography.
    • Yes, I only ever link to the volume rather than the article (and, indeed, assumed it to be accepted practice). This answer applies to a couple more comments, below, of a similar vintage.
Don't see how this is acceptable. Without a specific document reference, you're forcing readers who want to verify the source to search on the title. We are required to provide ISBN references for books so that readers can identify the specific book. Why aren't we required to do the same for journal articles? Factotem (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: well, either way, I've added dois to the article where possible: This seems the go-to place for that kind of thing. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There appears to be two volumes of Bryant's Parliament: The Biography. You don't specify which. Following the ISBN link provided to Worldcat reveals that that reference relates to Volume 1. None of the five editions listed for that volume are published by Transworld, as indicated in the article's bibliography.
    • Ironically, this is the only source remaining in the article from its original incarnation, so strictly I can't say. But I've added the details regarding the volume number. Worldcat registers Transworld (an imprint of Penguin) here.
      • @Serial Number 54129 and Factotem: Hi there, just to let you know, this was definitely the first volume, and it was the 2015 Black Swan edition. My mistake was because the first edition's publisher is listed as Doubleday, an imprint of Transworld. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Many thanks GreyGreenWhy! You can see what a ball-ache content creation can be now, eh  ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the listing for Dunham & Wood's The Right to Rule in England: Depositions and the Kingdom's Authority, 1327-1485, you've provided an OCLC ref for the journal The American Historical Review, but this appears to be a generic reference for the journal as a whole. A search for that specific article gives us a jstor reference and the issue number 4 that are missing from the article's bibliography.
    • As above.
  • The ISBN reference provided for Forhan & Nederman's Medieval Political Theory: A Reader: The Quest for the Body Politic 1100–1400 appears to relate to the 273-page e-book edition published in 2013. The 1993 edition has a different ISBN number and is only 257 pages. That difference in pagination might impact the page numbering in your refs.
    • It was this one, so the pagination is OK, but I think the refbook generator ascribed a dodgy ISBN to it.
Then bibliography should be amended to show the correct ISBN as given by that Gbooks link. Factotem (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Done. (Update: see [1].)
  • Similarly, the ISBN number for Fryde's Handbook of British Chronology appears to relate, according to Worldcat, to the 2003 edition, not the 1996 edition you've specified in the bibliography. This is, however, a purely cosmetic issue. I don't consider it to be a problem because at 605 pages, the pagination in both editions is the same.
    • Right!
  • The bibliography entry for National Archives gives an NA reference of SC8, which is a collection. The link you provide appears to be to a specific document with NA ref SC 8/56/2773. I think this should be included in the bibliography. You appear to have used the {{cite web}} template to format this; I wonder if the {{cite archive}} template is more appropriate?
    • That's fantastic, many thanks—I didn't even know it existed! If you could have a look again, considering it's first time usage. And you'll see a slight anomaly with the date; the archives themselves only (cautiously) date it within a ~20 year period, but harv referencing didn't like a date range, so the sfn is forced to just have one year (all things being equal, I chose 1326).
Looks good to me. I didn't have any problem entering a date range and previewing it. Presumably it throws an error when you try and save it. Don't personally have a problem with your solution, and given that there is no need to disambiguate National Archives sources (you only use one), I wouldn't have considered it a problem if the ref was undated. Factotem (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A few questions to more experienced reviewers:

That's not relevant to this question, which relates to, for example, Prestwich's book Plantagenet England: 1225–1360, published by Oxford University Press. Given the name of the publisher, I wasn't sure it was necessary to state the location as well, but the template only says it's not necessary when the title shows the location, not the publisher, so it looks like it is expected. Factotem (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There are 14 entries in the bibliography that do not give publisher information. It looks to me like these are journals. I don't know if it is required to provide publisher info for these, but some info is, at least in the case of Historical Research (publisher of Bradford's A Silent Presence: The English King in Parliament in the Fourteenth Century) available (although which of "Institute of Historical Research", "University of London" and "Wiley-Blackwell" is the correct publisher to credit, I do not know).
    • Again, I don't think I've ever seen a journal referenced with a location. In the case you cite, it's an article within a journal. And, as you point out, a journal can indeed go through many publishers whilst remaining under the ownership of the same body. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there a preference for ISBN numbers wherever possible, or is a mix of OCLC and ISBN acceptable? Obviously, there is no option where only an OCLC reference is available, but following the OCLC link for the H.M.S.O. publication Calendar of the close rolls preserved in the Public Record Office to Worldcat reveals that this publication has also been assigned an ISBN number.

I've only reviewed OCLC/ISBN/etc. links down to Fryde, about a quarter way down the bibliography. Don't really intend to do the rest (the above represents about two hours work). Taking a break now, but will come back later with a review of authors and publishers and any observations I may have on their reliability, which is, I think, the last element of the source review yet to be covered.

You're probably right, and a spot check is pretty much what I've done by halting. I try to do a full check because mismatched ISBNs/editions is a common error, and when the pagination is different, that has implications for WP:VERIFY, which is at the core of what we do here. Given that I've found a mismatch in the first quarter, I believe the correct thing for me to do now is suggest that you check the rest to confirm that there are no other errors. Factotem (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

When I do source reviews, I generally also do spot checks where I can find sources online, usually via Gbooks previews. I note that this is not really being asked for here, based on the fact that it is considered necessary only for first-time nominators (though I can find nothing in any of FAC documentation that formally states that). I'm tempted to do one here, more out of curiosity than anything else, though having skimmed through the nom's user page, it appears they have worked on only one FA, and the SR for that did not include spot checks. Factotem (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Forgot one thing. The very first ref is "Doherty 2013, p. ch. IV.". Firstly, that's mis-formatted; it's either p. or ch., not both. Secondly, it appears that a whole chapter is being referenced. Any reason why this is not narrowed down to a specific page or page range? Finally, a bit of cross-over to image review, but it's still a sourcing issue. What's the source for the data contained in the image showing Mortimer and Isabella's invasion route in 1326? The source should be added to the image's description page over at commons. Factotem (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I re-jigged Doherty; it's a whole chapter is because it takes that long to describe the King's and the rebels' progresses across the country. As to Commons: what does one do if one prefers not editing Commons...? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Ask someone else to do it. As I understand it, that information really needs to be sourced in the image description, not the caption. Factotem (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Done that for you. Non need for the ref in the image caption now. Factotem (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Second tranche edit

Checking sources for reliability.

  • My assumption is that university presses are reliable, so I conducted no research of these.
  • I checked all non-university publishers. For names I recognise, such as MacMillan and Routledge, this was very cursory. I spent a little longer on names I did not recognise. These checks were still somewhat brief, but generally did not reveal anything that raised any concerns.
  • Where I could not find anything to satisfy myself that the publisher was reliable, I researched either the author or the work. I found nothing of concern, but it might be useful to list those for which I found such more in-depth research to be necesary:
  • I've not come across Russell & Russell, publishers of Clarke's Medieval Representation and Consent: A Study of Early Parliaments in England and Ireland before, but a review of the work indicates that it is reliable. Incidentally, it would appear that it was originally published in 1936, which can be added to the bibliography listing with the parameter |orig-year=First published 1936.
    • Added, cheers.
  • Similar story with Psychology Press, publishers of Gransden's work, but later editions are published by Routledge, and the author's credentials seem acceptable. BTW, this is the second volume of two, and the book's full title appears to be Historical writing in England / 2. C.1307 to the early sixteenth century.
    • Added volume.
  • Again with Birlinn, publishers of McNamee's The Wars of the Bruces: Scotland, England and Ireland 1306 - 1328, but the work was well received in a review by Ormrod
  • I checked all journals, and found that all but one are published by university presses. Referring to my question above, it would have made the review easier if this information had been included in the bibliography details.
    • Ah!
  • The one non-university published journal, Studies : an Irish quarterly review, is published by The Educational Company of Ireland. I was a bit concerned that this publisher of school textbooks lacked the necessary scholarship, but the source is used only once, to support a non-contentious quote, so see no reason to consider it a problem.
    • Excellent, will bear it in mind for the future though.
  • Of the two websites used as sources:
  • British History Online's about page gave me no cause for concern.
  • I don't normally consider news publishers to be reliable sources for anything other than news, but the BBC's history pages actually seem quite solid to me. You've used this as a source only once but, straying into spot checks here, ref #154 cites the BBC in support of the statement "although [Bryant] suggests Isabella and Roger Mortimer thought it necessary to have parliamentary support". The BBC page supports the assertion that Isabella & Mortimer sought Parliament's support, but makes no mention of Bryant. The statements are also sourced to Bryant, who supports the assertions being made in the article on his own (though I think you need to source it to pp. 66–67, not just 67), so I question the need for that BBC ref. BTW, checking Bryant confirms that you've specified the correct volume of Parliament: The Biography. Your response above to my question about which volume was used concerned me somewhat – it looked a little like a guess. Incidentally, "although" starts the sentence, and needs to be capitalised, or the preceding full stop needs to be a comma.
  • That source can probably be removed, it is not actually supporting anything, just a mistake I made when drafting the original stub. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks both—I've removed the BBC source.

In summary, I didn't find anything to suggest that the sources used are not reliable.

Notwithstanding the single spot check immediately above, I'm still not sure that I will be doing any more. The above represents another two hours of work. Factotem (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Third tranche edit

To verify comprehensiveness, I usually do a Gbooks search on the relevant topic. I did two searches for this article and checked the first three pages of results for each. The first was for "edward ii", which reveals one potentially authoritative source which does not appear to have been consulted for this article:

  • The Reign of Edward II: New Perspectives by Dodd and Musson. You use Dodd's BBC History article once (unnecessarily, as identified above), and a different chapter in the book, but you don't use the 25-page chapter titled "Parliament and Political Legitimacy" which seems very relevant. Is there a reason why it's not used as a source? I note that in the first two pages Dodds discusses the historiography of the subject, and identifies a number of works that don't appear to have been used in the article, by H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, who appear not to have been consulted at all; three works by G. L. Harris (this author does appear to have been used, but not the three works Dodd mentions); a work by J. G. Edwards (editor of a different work which has been used in the article); what I assume to be a 1981 journal article (Historical Studies 14) by M. Prestwich, though a more recent work by this author has been used; and a biography(?) of Thomas of Lancaster by Maddicott (who does appear in the bibliography with a different and, going by the title, more relevant work).

The rest of the first three pages of results reveal works by Roy Martin Haines, who appears to have solid academic credentials; Susan Higginbotham, who appears to be more of a popular historian; and Stephen Spinks, whose Edward II the Man: A Doomed Inheritance was published 2017, but whose biography also indicates that he is more a popular rather than academic historian. The Gbooks previews for all three don't suggest that they have devoted a great deal of attention to this article's topic.

I've added some material from the Dodd/Musson; but using "Edward II" as a search parameter is a trifle broad, and, in general, such as it provides on this particular niche of his reign, is covered in much more detail by the search you performed subsequently. Stand by though.
I still think you need to respond with something about the other authors I mention above. They were not identified by the Google search, they are identified by Dodds as relevant in a chapter that specifically discusses the subject of this article. It may well be, for example, that the work by G. L. Harris that you have used is all that is necessary, and the other three works by him add nothing new, but I think I need some re-assurance of that, and about the other authors mentioned above, before I could be happy to support the article on sourcing criteria. Factotem (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
{reply|Factotem}} I made a couple tweaks to enable me to incorporate relevant material, my general concern previously was to avoid the impression of giving all available sources equal weight when they may not deserve it (often a concern for older sources), and to avoid unnecessary detail (re: summary style). Having said that, context is always important, so there you have it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: previous ping failed. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
That's fine. We're required to incorporate all significant aspects of a subject according to their weight in the sources. That does not require us to incorporate every single source. Not knowing the subject myself, all I can do to assure myself that the article is a comprehensive survey of all sources is search for sources and identify those that aren't used. It's perfectly valid to come back and say source X doesn't add anything new, source Y has been discredited, source Z is no longer relevant because of more recent research, etc. etc. Factotem (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The second search was for "parliament 1327" which revealed the aforementioned The English Parliament in the Middle Ages by H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles and little else.

    • Which is odd, as a similar search of my own using the same string brings up reams of relevant material—much of which I've used.
My bad. I wasn't clear. The search brings up lots of relevant hits, which as you say you have used. When I wrote "and little else", I meant little else to make me concerned that the article was not comprehensive survey of relevant literature. You still need to address why Richardson and Sayles are not used as a source, though. Factotem (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
(see above re. R'son)

Spotchecks (a little more cursory than the 10% I normally aim for, but I can't devote any more time to this).

  • #22 (Ormrod 2011 p. 35), #56 (Ormrod 2011 p. 47), #72 (Phillips 2006 p. 232), #152 (Harriss 1994 p. 14), # 55b (Mortimer 2010 p. 165) OK
  • #27 (Ormrod 2011 p. 41). I don't see any support in the source for the assertion that the commander of royal fleet joined the rebels, only that he permitted safe passage to Isabella.
    • Rephrased it to the more neutral "assisted the rebels".
  • # 46 (Ormrod 2011 p. 524) doesn't support the statement that "Isabella, Mortimer and the lords left Bristol on 31 December..." at all. This is the first page of the chapter "A Fragile Tenure, 1369–1376", so looks to be a complete error in citing.
    • Absolutely, and absolutely bizarre: that's been there since March. In any case, a search of other works doesn't reveal another source, so just merged it into "Isabella, Mortimer and the lords arrived in London on 4 January", which s reliably sourced.
  • # 55a (Mortimer 2010 p. 165). There's a few minor infidelities here. The source states that the question of what to do with Edward II was the last but not least in a list of several key issues discussed, not the main priority. Picky, but the source says only that Roger spent Christmas at Wallingford, not that the issues were discussed "just after Christmas". Finally, I'm not sure the source supports the statement "public trials always bring the danger of a wrong verdict"; it states only that "...if Edward was not found guilty of treason..." before going on to explain the doubt about whether a king could be charged with treason.
    • Three things there. I agree re. it being a priority but not being the main one. As to Christmas: I think my interpretation is acceptable: I drew it from the fact that Mortier was obviously discussing it (with someone) at Christmas (because Mortimer says "his stay was not all seasonal frivolity") and then that "by the end of December...", which suggests it had gone on over (after) Christmas itself. Which, of course, isn't a day—it's a season.

Overall

  • There are still a few issues in the first tranche of comments to be addressed, but there's nothing there to suggest to me any major problems.
  • I don't see any obvious problems with the reliability of sourcing.
  • The most serious issue, which might result in an oppose, is about the comprehensiveness of the sourcing. The lack of use of Dodd's chapter and the works he identifies needs to be addressed, either with a good explanation of why they are not necessary, or by incorporating them into the article.
  • With the exception of ref #46 (Ormrod 2011 p. 524), which looks to be a mistake in citing, I see no significant problems or misrepresentations. There are a few questionable statements, but these are not fundamental to the subject.

That's about as comprehensive a source review as I can manage. Other than responding to responses, I don't intend to devote any more time to this. Factotem (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

    • @Factotem: Many thanks for this again, that's a lot of man hours put in and I hope not wasted. I've addressed all (or at least most—let me know if I've missed anything fundamental) your points, generally positively. In any case, it's all useful to the article and it's possible progression. Cheers! Take care, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
No, you haven't. There are still points I've raised that remain unaddressed, including the very first. Factotem (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I've bolded issues above that still need to be addressed. Feel free to unbold them yourself when you've done so. I also think the issue of added doi/jstor refs for specific journal articles, rather than relying on OCLC refs for the journal, is a significant issue, but maybe that's something for wider discussion. Factotem (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah

All issues resolved. Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2018 (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.

Saving Light edit

This source review has failed. Concerns include issues with WP:RS, verification, and close paraphrasing that require further work. --Laser brain (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

Saving Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominated by MicroPowerpoint.

Comments from RL0919 edit

(not entirely sure what will be the preferred format here, so going with something similar to what I would do at FAC)

A few sources seem presumably acceptable at first look, such as Billboard, DJ Magazine, and DJ Times, which are all well-established magazines. But some of the sources raised immediate flags that I would want the nominator to respond to:

  • EDM Sauce (used in four refs) received negative feedback from participants in an RSN discussion last year.
  • Your EDM (used in five refs) got equivocal feedback in that same RSN discussion and another in the same archive.
  • EDMTunes (also used in four refs) doesn't appear to have been discussed at RSN, but I cannot find any editorial staff details.

Some of the other sources are generally similar to those and probably deserve some further discussion as well, but the specifics above make me most concerned about those three. Since together they constitute a significant percentage of the references, I would appreciate some feedback from the nominator before digging into the less-used sources. Do you have any other information that would help justify these as quality sources either generally or for the specific details? Or alternatively, perhaps there are cases where a better quality source could be substituted?

On a different note, could you explain why refnote 19 has five different sources in it? The material cited seems like it could be supported with just one or two of these (preferably the highest quality ones, such as DJ Times and DJ Mag, if they contain all the relevant details). RL0919 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The reliability for Saving Light sources in see the articles Good Article nomination, where I had to prove that "That these sites are not just blogs and have some sort of editorial oversight or staff (which you can typically find on a "About Page" page/tab or something similar)". Various sources were deleted in the process, such as some minor blogs and self-published stuff, but apart from those, the rest were all good to be used in a good article, with a list of editorial oversight or staff for each site.
I've generally accepted EDM Sauce as a usable source because they have a CEO and Founder (this guy) and an editor-in-chief (this guy), and a bunch of of editors that can be found on Muck Rack like (this guy), (this person) and (this one). This basically proves that EDM Sauce can also be used as a reference as it isn't just a blog and has some sort of editorial oversight or staff. A bunch of other staff can be found (here). Because of this, I believe that EDM Sauce is fine for use, but should be replaced with a better site (such as Billboard, DJ Mag, Rolling Stone, etc) when possible.
Your EDM is on a higher level then EDM Sauce because (as proved in the good article) Your EDM has more writers, has a CEO, CFO, Editor-in-Chief, Label Director, Chief Content & Social Media Manager, Content Curator, etc. Because of this, it is generally accepted (among myself and several wiki editors) that Your EDM is perfectly fine and is usable.
I've previously discussed the acceptability of EDMTunes with ANode on the talk page of "Hex" by Rezz. Basicly the problem was that EDMTunes seemed to be a self-published blog and should not be used, which is understandable. TL;DR in whole conversation I linked EDMtunes' and their writers pages on Muck Rack, LinkedIn and the hiring standards of the site with how many writers there are. In the end, ANode saw this as sufficient evidence of the acceptability of the site and that's that.
Ref note 19 has five sources because... well, I don't know, I didn't edit them in, I believe it was Walru5hunterofficial who put them in. I've just left them in because they didn't seem to be doing any real harm. I can see your point though, I'll remove the EDM Identity and EDM Sauce ones, but leave the other three as they all seem fine. Micro (Talk) 00:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Not to say that I fully agree with the use of EDM Tunes, I'll still prefer to avoid it completely together with EDM Sauce especially when used for reviews (I mean just look at this review for the Common Ground album, I thought of using it at first and after I read it I backed off immediately. 100% opinion piece and no sign of viable criticism and analysis). But if consensus says otherwise, I guess these sources can be accepted. aNode (discuss) 05:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I can see why you avoided that review for Command Ground. IMO Sites like EDM Sauce and EDMTunes are usable, but should be replaced with better sites like Dancing Astronaut, Your EDM, Billboard and Rolling Stone if available. Micro (Talk) 07:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
EDM Sauce and Your EDM at least have evidence of named editorial staff, who presumably review the content. But the standard at FA is a bit higher than the bare minimum for WP:RS. We want the best quality sources available for the subject. This is relative to the content -- no one expects that recent popular songs will typically be the subject of prestigious academic journals. But wherever possible we should be preferring established, reputable journalism outlets such as the magazines mentioned above or Dancing Astronaut. And WP:RS is absolutely required. I can't say EDMTunes is even WP:RS -- the editorial staff appears to be nameless, and while there are multiple writers, there is only vague indication of any vetting -- an application form that only offers "internships" but no regular positions is not very reassuring. My recommendation is that EDMTunes be removed entirely as a source.
Regarding the multi-source note, now that is it cut down to three, my suggestion is to split it into three separate notes. The bullet list is causing weird formatting on my browser. Not sure if that is universal, but I am confident that separate notes will render more consistently. FYI, I will be traveling internationally tomorrow, so if I don't pick up immediately on any replies or updates, it's just a short delay. I should be able to follow up plus add comments on other sources by Tuesday. RL0919 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I still believe that EDMTunes can* be used as a source because the of the reasons shown in the talk page for Hex, though I have removed/replaced every EDMTunes reference as it may not be suitable for FA. As shown in Saving Light's good article nomination, Every other reference should 100% be good as they are not just blogs and have some sort of editorial oversight or staff. There is a problem with finding suitable sources however, as Saving Light follows WP:EDM, that wiki project lists a bunch of news coverages and stuff, some of which I don't think are reliable enough to use and some don't even exist anymore. Changed the multi-source note to multiple citations, my browser (Chrome) is fine with multi-source, not sure why it is causing weird formatting stuff on your end. Micro (Talk) 02:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

comments from Outriggr edit

These are verification spotchecks of the last text three sections.

  • The section "A State of Trance 2017 and Tune of the Year" overcites relatively less important statements (five citations for the first three sentences), but doesn't immediately cite the central claim, Van Buuren announc[ed] that "Saving Light" had won Tune of the Year.
  • One of the references were misplaced, where they were in the second sentence, it was moved to the third sentence where it is supposed to be, re-worded the third sentence to match the references.
  • I can't see where the date August 18 is mentioned in the citation for An extended play of "Saving Light" was released on 18 August 2017; it features six remixes by various artists, including one by American producer Notaker.
  • Wouldn't the date be covered by the iTunes reference?
  • I don't know why it would be covered by a reference that is not used in that paragraph... if the date is referenced elsewhere, it's certainly not a big deal; but I believe separately there is concern about iTunes as a source?
  • Changed to "was released in August 2017", which should be fine. Also iTunes isn't a reference in the page at all, it used to be and I forgot that I had removed it.
  • The exact phrase "warm, subtle and comforting" is in both the source and your text.
  • I don't understand this comment, it seems like you are just pointing out a phrase appears in the source and the text with nothing to add or suggest.
  • This is using language from a source verbatim without quotation/attribution: see WP:Close paraphrasing, etc. Except it's not close paraphrasing, it's exact phrasing. For this to be valid, you'd have to put quotes around it.
  • Ok, got it, understood and fixed.
  • The exact phrase "worked harmoniously together" is in both the source and your text.
  • I don't understand this comment, it seems like you are just pointing out a phrase appears in the source and the text with nothing to add or suggest.
  • This is using language from a source verbatim without quotation/attribution: see WP:Close paraphrasing, etc. Except it's not close paraphrasing, it's exact phrasing. For this to be valid, you'd have to put quotes around it, except that you quote the source later in the same sentence, so another quote would be awkward. Should be reworded.
  • I can see how it's awkward. Instead of putting it into quotes, I erased "harmoniously" so there is no descriptor and thus it should be fine.
  • You slightly misquote Jim Babaoglu (whose name I can't see as the author of source [2]). They write (and the wiki article doesn't use [sic] where it ought to): "Notakers ability to add a gritty digital feel to this song really let him display his own version of this already incredible track." Spot the difference! :-)
  • Changed his name to 'an editor' and re-wrote the review to fix the issue. This comment isn't very helpful, it just looks like a smug remark, it would be better if you were to actually tell me what to change.
  • I'm not trying to be smug, that's why the smiley face is there. The difference is that the source says "lets" and the article said "let"; it seems to be changed now. The source and the article also wrote "Notakers" where an apostrophe is required.
  • The smiley face made it seem* smug, sorry if I caused any offence, i'm just used to ":)" being a sarcastic remark. Anyway, the comment seems to be addressed so that's that.
  • The source doesn't mention anything about purchases from "Beatport" in particular being directed to charity for a month. Is this implied--the only place you can buy the track?
  • Which source? There are like 6 sources that state this exact thing, so I don't really understand what you mean by this comment, in particular this part in 'Background and release': "Throughout the month of February, the proceeds from "Saving Light" were donated to Ditch the Label, a charity which supports victims of bullying.", which says all purchases go toward charity, not just Beatport purchases.
  • My only point was that the article says "This was an initiative organised by Emery and Monstercat that encouraged fans to purchase the song on Beatport to support the anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label. It received 100% of the profits made from sales of the song in the month of February"--while the source does not mention Beatport. The earlier mentions of Beatport in the article I didn't look at/know about; and I'm not sure if the sources used there would be more direct about Beatport than the source for this sentence is.
  • Ah, I see. I've removed Beatport from the first paragraph and moved a reference to further support it.
  • The "Music video" section seems fine in this regard. Outriggr (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I wasn't so sure what you meant by some comments, in particular your 3rd, 4th and 7th comments. If you could clarify, that'd be great. Micro (Talk) 09:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Conclusion: I have replied to your questions, and at this point I will close my review. Now the question is, is this source review process supposed to be another place for long exchanges about fixing problem areas, or a place where the reviewer supports or opposes. I will say I'd be inclined to oppose this FAC because of the exact phrasing issues, which are usually taken quite seriously, and some inexact use of web sources, such as attributing an author where none was given in the source (which now may be fixed). I believe that extreme scrutiny of web sources, and their use, is fair, when the article's topic must rely on lesser-known web sources. For a shorter article, a lot of commentary has been generated here (in both reviews). Outriggr (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If you have nothing to add onto my further replies, the issues you have stated here should be fixed. Micro (Talk) 01:09, 4 September 2018 (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.

Shannen Says edit

This source review has failed. Aoba47, there was some debate on my Talk page about what the result of test cases like this should be. You addressed the comments made but ultimately I'm thinking this wouldn't be in-depth enough to suffice for FAC purposes. When we toss this back to the community we'll get some more feedback on whether this type of review would be considered pass or fail, or if we need to use language like "incomplete" etc. --Laser brain (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

Shannen Says (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominated by Aoba47.

  • Some of the details in the infobox, eg the composers list, do not appear to be cited anywhere
  • I have cited the production companies and the executive producers. I have removed the composers list as I cannot find a reliable source that lists them (the only place that I see this information cited in IMDb and other unreliable sites). Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FN8: source gives publication date of May 5, not 15th, whereas for FN9 source gives January 15, not 5th. Check throughout
  • I have checked through the dates, and revised anything that was incorrect (including any weird URL glitches/errors). Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Still seeing errors here - eg. FN34 says 2014 but source says 2012, same with FN33. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I have fixed the references. I have double-checked the dates for the references, and I believe that I have addressed it all. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FN15: publication name is incorrect
  • Are you referencing the Realscreen source? I believe the publication name is correct. Could you specify what you mean here? Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FN17 is a gossip column - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • I have removed reference 17 as reference 16 already covers the same information. I had cited the New York Daily News in a different reference, but I replaced it with a more high-quality source.Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: Just pinging you to see if you have any further comments. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2018 (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.

Discussion edit

This section is for discussion of the above reviews, if necessary, though it might be better to have any relevant discussions at WT:FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Given the amount of general discussion on WT:FAC atm, perhaps keeping it here and noting/linking this from WT:FAC would be best (obviously any conclusions drawn from the workshop could reasonably go there). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
How about using this page's TP for the broader discussions? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mike_Christie/FQSR_workshop&oldid=863059888"