Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Goldmoon/1

Goldmoon edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Reviewers noted a lack of real world content and reliable secondary sources. The lead also fails to summarize the article. Geometry guy 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article, and found it to be deficent one one very imporant regard: there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional character outside of the primary source material.

The article itself goes into great detail about these primary sources, quoting extensively from them. As a result, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT because it is a regurgitation of the primary sources.

Following a review of this article, I added the Notability template so that this issue would be addressed. It was removed by ReyBrujo on the grounds that "Notability asserted in the article itself"[1], an assertion that I believe is not in accordance with WP Guidelines WP:V and WP:RS, and I have brought this matter to his attention.

It appears that the requirement for reliable secondary sources was ignored in this article's Good Article assessment, and this issue should now be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the manual of style, The term secondary information describes information external to the fictional universe, and is usually taken from secondary sources about the fictional world, or from primary and secondary sources about the author and the circumstances of creation. Annotated books are primary sources, yes, but with comments from the authors about the circumstances of creation, which fits the definition. Books are used to reference the plot, but when giving author's insight of the character, annotated books and supplements written in an out-of-universe perspective are given. I believe it is clear enough that reliable sources are used. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go back and get some author interviews from Dragon and White Dwarf. Dragon was published by the same publisher, yes, but I am going to be looking at the interviews. White Dwarf was an independent publisher. ReyBrujo: I'll forward any information I find and we can decide how to use it. Web Warlock (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reassert my previous comment from Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Riverwind/1. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist due to paucity of real-world context. NOTPLOT asserts that "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Majoreditor (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as there is no real world context. This reassessment has been up for almost a month and there is no real change in this issue, even with links and information on how to fix the issue.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been delisted. I am keeping the comment here for future reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]