Misplaced Pages

Talk:William L. Uanna/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:William L. Uanna Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:32, 3 December 2013 editHawkeye7 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors124,098 edits →GA Review← Previous edit Revision as of 10:31, 4 December 2013 edit undoMoswento (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled22,891 edits →GA Review: replyNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:
* "Short Biograpical Sketch" - this is currently used to source the majority of the article. My concern is two-fold. 1) As a biographical statement written by Uanna himself, relying so heavily on it raises questions of reliability. 2) How do we know it's even authentic? * "Short Biograpical Sketch" - this is currently used to source the majority of the article. My concern is two-fold. 1) As a biographical statement written by Uanna himself, relying so heavily on it raises questions of reliability. 2) How do we know it's even authentic?
** Its authenticity is vouched for by the MPHRA. ] (]) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC) ** Its authenticity is vouched for by the MPHRA. ] (]) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
*** My main concern is still not the fact that it's used, but its frequency. See new comment below. ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 10:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
* "Assassination as Non-Proliferation" - I cannot see a blog comment meeting WP:RS * "Assassination as Non-Proliferation" - I cannot see a blog comment meeting WP:RS
* History News Network - as above * History News Network - as above
**HNN is a reliable source. But what we are actually sourcing is his son's comments, which supports what the article says avout his son. ] (]) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC) **HNN is a reliable source. But what we are actually sourcing is his son's comments, which supports what the article says avout his son. ] (]) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
***The comments are not just used to support statements about his son, but about his career. ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 10:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am still not convinced that the article in its current form meets the GA criteria for verifiability. Overall, the article is well-written and a pleasure to read, but the main core of the article is referenced to "questionable sources" - i.e. sources closely connected with the subject that have been "published" without any apparent fact-checking or editorial oversight. The entire CIC section (except the first sentence) is referenced to such a source, and two other such sources are used a total of 7 times. This includes not just minor biographical details, but whole sections of his career, including achievements and figures etc. Some of this could be fixed using the two NYT articles, but you may still disagree with my assessment. If that is the case, would you like me to request a second opinion on this review? ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 10:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


;Text ;Text

Revision as of 10:31, 4 December 2013

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Moswento (talk · contribs) 08:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Before I continue with this review, I have a major concern with the sources for this article. Currently, the majority of the article seems to be referenced to questionable sources. However, I may have misunderstood, and the prose is very good, so I'm leaving this open for you to respond.

  • Ancestry.com - Aren't these just user-generated family trees?
  • WW2enlistment.org - I realise you only use this for an enlistment date, but this appears to be a self-confessed potentially unreliable source. "We have reason to believe there is some information on the enlistee that might contain inaccuracies or data quality issues."
  • "Short Biograpical Sketch" - this is currently used to source the majority of the article. My concern is two-fold. 1) As a biographical statement written by Uanna himself, relying so heavily on it raises questions of reliability. 2) How do we know it's even authentic?
  • "Assassination as Non-Proliferation" - I cannot see a blog comment meeting WP:RS
  • History News Network - as above

I'm sorry, but I am still not convinced that the article in its current form meets the GA criteria for verifiability. Overall, the article is well-written and a pleasure to read, but the main core of the article is referenced to "questionable sources" - i.e. sources closely connected with the subject that have been "published" without any apparent fact-checking or editorial oversight. The entire CIC section (except the first sentence) is referenced to such a source, and two other such sources are used a total of 7 times. This includes not just minor biographical details, but whole sections of his career, including achievements and figures etc. Some of this could be fixed using the two NYT articles, but you may still disagree with my assessment. If that is the case, would you like me to request a second opinion on this review? Moswento 10:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Text

Some of the text issues I spotted before the source issues temporarily halted my review: