Talk:The Soxaholix

The Soxaholix was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 23, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
October 25, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
June 28, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
December 8, 2015	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Baseball Low‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics: Webcomics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Webcomics.

Editorial Review[edit]

One item which I will throw out as the first change that will probably be worth making is to put all of the citations into {{cite web...}} format. I was just getting used to the criteria for this format at the time that I introduced it to some of the citations and not others. Any help on these citations would be appreciated. ju66l3r 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions arising from Peer review so far:

The characters need to be described from an "out of universe" perspective (see the added tag).
General questionability of the reliable sources, including a more problematic description of the WSJ article as a copyright violation (I personally do not see it as such, but this was the reviewer's comment).

A few things to think about, in order to reach GA status. ju66l3r 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the perspective of the characters section and removed the tag. I have also replaced any links to the WSJ article causing potential copyvio problems. ju66l3r 18:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Peer Review is archived, I'm submitting this article for GA status. ju66l3r 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

This is very close to good article status. The only issue that I can see is that the images tagged for fair use lack a detailed fair use rationale on their discussion page (further information on Help:Image page). If this problem can be resolved I believe the article is ready to be passed, please leave a note on my talk page if this is done. Seraphimblade 04:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what was needed. Excellent work and glad to pass it. Seraphimblade 03:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Soxaholix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I did remove one POV statement: The daily comments, which are provided by real people (for the most part) seldom add anything to the content of the strip, but are worth reading to enable one to track their slow decline into alcoholism. and replaced it with something more neutral. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
As mentioned above I reverted one recent POV addition. OK, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Soxaholix/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I do not believe this article meets the GA criteria. Currently, it seems that the article is primarily based on one source — that of The Wall Street Journal. Though it is a good source, it is currently the only one in use in the history section. Furthermore, besides one link to the about-page, there are no citations in the format section. These seem like serious verifiability issues. I don't believe it meets the verifiability guidelines of WP:GA?.

The history section includes the following paragraph:

"With the sustained success of the Boston Red Sox since 2004, a strip based upon failure, sadness and schadenfreude might have been expected to wither away. Not so. Despite considering a "retirement" or hiatus from the strip after the successful 2013 season, the author continues to post pithy entries nearly every weekday. (With rare exceptions- marked by life-changing events or outrageous fortune—weekend strips are rare). During the 2013 season, in the interest of his (or her) sanity, the author also announced that henceforth there would be no strip on a Friday when the Red Sox were under .500 in wins and losses."

Not only is this paragraph original research, the prose also seems unusual ("Not so."; "with rare exceptions- marked by ..."; "his (or her) sanity"; "henceforth"; etc). I don't think the prose is particularly well-written. Neutrality may also be an issue, with phrases such as "sustained success of the Boston Red Sox since 2004".

The characters sub-section — which is entirely unsourced — is questionable, as I see no indication anywhere that the "characters" from this webcomic are worth talking about on their own. Besides the original research, I'd say they might get undue weight.

These are my main issues with the article, and seem difficult to fix without more reliable sources to work with. ~Mable (chat) 12:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]