Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Michael Larson/2

Michael Larson edit

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.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sent this to GAR a year ago, and I'm still not sure it meets WP:WIAGA criteria for breadth and reliability of sources. To wit:

Tagged with {{one source}} which I don't agree with, but still should be discussed regarding the article's integrity.
Should the "Press Your Luck" scandal link to a bootleg upload of the special on YouTube?
This American Life, Buzzr, World's Greatest Con are all just primary links proving "this medium discussed Michael Larsen".
Buzzer Blog has been proven in the past not to be an RS and should be replaced or removed.
The GMA interview is also sourced to a bootleg upload and should be swapped out.
Is Mental Floss a RS? I haven't seen it on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources.
Sources 20 and 21 do not prove that Larsen's record was beaten, suggesting WP:SYNTH.
Source 22 is just an inflation calculator and has little to do with the subject at hand.
Larson also discovered that the fourth and eighth squares... entire paragraph is unsourced

Honestly, I'm not 100% sure how far over the WP:BLP1E threshhold he even is, as most of the post-Press Your Luck information comes almost entirely from the documentary or from other primary sources such as the GMA interview. The previous GAR stalled out due to a focus on notability and did not properly address the sourcing issues I've brought up above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. I am quite disillusioned with this site at this point and simply lack the energy to try to save it a second time. I will note that I have never had any issues when using Mental Floss, nor have I seen any users raise questions about its credibility. I also question "BuzzerBlog has been proven in the past not to be an RS" as its editors are very well-connected in the game show world and have never (to my knowledge) put out blatantly false information on their website. I made the argument in favor of Larson's notability in terms of WP:BLP1E on the last GAR, so should this ever end up at AfD, I will gladly make an argument in favor of keep once again. But as for its GA status, others can gladly make that decision for themselves. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want this to get sidetracked by the subject's notability again. My concern is more in the sourcing quality and the unreferenced portions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is fairly clear that if more than 1,500 words are sourced entirely to a YouTube link, then that part of the article is not WP:DUE. At the moment, the article is in clear violation of GA criterion 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as I still largely agree with TenPoundHammer regarding this article's flaws, though I would probably pass Mental Floss as a reliable source. However, additionally: (a) About 11.6 percent of the article is unsourced. (b) "The game" section is wholly overdetailed, which has apparently been an unaddressed concern for about 12.93 years. (c) The {{one source}} is a problem. Lastly, (d) I cannot understand why this is written as a biography, given Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. 82.8 percent of the article is directly related to the Press Your Luck event, and the rest is only sourced to articles discussing him in that same context. (When I wrote suicide of Bill Conradt, and was accused of vandalism for redirecting the BIO1E thereto, Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) wrote at AN/I that the event-article was appropriate because what little biographical information existed about the subject was far-and-away secondary to the event.) There's plenty of sources here to write Press Your Luck scandal appropriately, but it too would need to reckon with the other problems listed on this—and the article's talk—page. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.