Talk:Cinderella III: A Twist in Time/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately tagged.

Passing by, but I agree with reviewer. As the ref lacks any editorial policies and is clearly a one-person blog, how is it an RS? The only evidence might be that absence of controversies for the source is evidence...? You said that it is go to, but a ref isn't reliable just because we use it at WP (in fact, before The Daily Mail is deprecated it was cited lots of times), if you could find a couple of other RS using it, that's an indication it's a well-respected ref. Essentially, the about us page is an ad for this person, along with the line Please hire him, backed up by no evidence. This might be just because I'm silly:), but somehow I couldn't find where it's used The Simpsons (season 13), a Command F search also didn't find any, strangely... VickKiang (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang Thank you for your input. My quandary is: the practice by which Wikipedia editors/reviewers – particularly those who have little experience writing about or reviewing certain topics such as @Mike Christie (this isn't intended to be rude or disrespectful; the editor themself admitted this when they submitted the sources for additional review) – are able to determine what sources are reliable or not seems random at worst, and arbitrary at best. Obviously, there is a collection of Wikipedia editors experienced in editing film/television articles who consider Ultimate Disney to be a reliable source, or at the very least the best source of its kind due to the quality and scope of content available, as well as relevance to the topic. Am I to believe the fact that dozens of articles were promoted to GA while using the source holds absolutely no weight in helping to determine whether the source is valid? As for the The Simpsons (season 13) article, the source is referenced in this article Dvdizzy.com, which is the same website; I believe it was originally called Ultimate Disney before being renamed DVDizzy, or vise versa (I would imagine that your attempt to look for the source means your interest was also peaked as to how the source can be used in an FA article, despite being in your opinion "unreliable").
Although I have little faith that this will help my case much, I've found a few reliable sources that actually cite DVDizzy/Ultimate Disney as a reference in their own articles per your recommendation, ranging from cast and crew interviews, to specs about film and DVD releases: IGN, Texas Public Radio, Anime News Network, narniaweb.com, ComicBook.com. Changedforbetter (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact that does help -- the reliable sources in that list help establish that the source is treated as reliable, and I understand the concept that an individual who is sufficiently dedicated can establish themselves as an expert in a narrow field -- snooker.org was one such. Can you find any coverage of the site e.g. interviews with the person who runs it, or descriptions of it, as opposed to just links to it, in reliable sources? Is it perhaps described in books about Disney as a reliable resource? And separately, any further comments on the other sources I've queried? I'm not seeing any feedback at RSN in support of these, other than dvdtalk which I've struck below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie By sheer happenstance, I came across a review about the documentary film Walt - The Man Behind the Myth published on The Walt Disney Family Museum website in 2011, which actually quotes a review from Luke Bonanno of UltimateDisney.com. If this doesn't seal the deal, I don't know what will.
I too having been awaiting additional commentary about the remaining sources from RSN as well since I've already offered my initial feedback, but I can look into those as well if it would expedite the process. Changedforbetter (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that just about gets us over the line. I think you would run into more pushback if you were to take this to WP:FAC, to be honest, but it's clear it's widely enough respected that it's not much of a risk to use it. Re the RSN comments, you've already commented here, so for my purposes that's enough, but that thread will be archived eventually and used as a reference by others researching those sites, so you might want to add your thoughts to the mix. Yes, it would help if you can find similar evidence about the other sites; at the moment the only significant commentary about them is negative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is certainly reasonable, Changedforbetter, depsite my personal disagreement. It seems to me that you're saying that evaluating refs via RSN is... arbitary? Still, the refs that cite it looks quite convincing, so I guess it should be fine for GA for uncontroversial topics that don't fall under 2b, probably. VickKiang (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this particular source wasn't included in the ones I listed at RSN, because I was sure it was unreliable! But I think even if it had been, when Changedforbetter found good evidence, I ought to be able to take that into account. I wish all the WikiProjects had pages like the video games sources page; I'm sure this site's been discussed half a dozen times before which is a waste of everyone's time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie You were "sure it was unreliable". This....this is what I mean by arbitrary lol. At least we can agree that it was a waste of time. Changedforbetter (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pause the review until these are resolved, as removing these might change the text of the article substantially. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All points have been addressed. Changedforbetter (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Changedforbetter (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through each one above and reply individually, but to save repetition under each one it's quicker if I add a comment or two here that may apply to more than one above. It's not how much a site is used in the article that counts, or whether it is used elsewhere in Wikipedia; it's whether we can trust the site to provide reliable data. In a couple of cases above you link to pages that list editorial staff; that usually does it, because it makes it clear that the site is run to editorial standards. Pointing out cases where other reliable sources clearly trust the site is also good. A site's own statements about how trustworthy they are can be helpful, but only if they describe editorial policies. Sites run by a single person are only occasionally going to be reliable; usually that's when it's the personal site of an acknowledged expert in the field. I also do look at the sources listed at WP:FILM/R and usually go along with their assessment, so you might want to suggest on their talk page that they should add sites to the list. If I say "Needs more evidence" above, it means I don't think any of these criteria have been met, and it also means I've looked on the website myself to try to find evidence of editorial control and so on, and have been unable to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck three from the list based on your feedback, and have left a few notes above; towards the end I decided to quit posting individual notes and have posted a query at WT:FILM. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at WP:RSN as well and have pinged you to that thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changedforbetter, without more evidence I'm not going to pass this with animesuperhero.com and animatedviews.com in the article. That would tear a big hole in it and I think I'd probably have to fail it anyway while you cut that material out and rewrote. If you're convinced they ought to stay, I suggest that I fail this GA while you work on finding evidence that they are reliable. Any future GA reviewer will read this review and ask the same questions, so I think there's no point in just delaying. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Fail it please. Changedforbetter (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm failing it. Re your comment above: it was not a waste of time. I would have wasted your time if I'd failed it without asking you for evidence, but I asked for evidence before failing it and you provided some. That's how it should work -- the fact that I was sure it was unreliable didn't prevent you from changing my mind. I should have included it in the RSN list, though; that was an oversight, though in the end it made no difference. Anyway, best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cinderella_III:_A_Twist_in_Time/GA1&oldid=1108009056"