User talk:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d

505:

but at least I understand you (it is perhaps a discussion that TVSOAP editors need to take back to RSN again, given that I also spot-checked a number of existing GA in the area subsequently, and got the impression that if they were reviewed to the sourcing standards you applied then they would all be delisted.). The only remaining quibble I have is that you're describing the Mirror as a 'questionable source' when the table clearly says 'No consensus'. That feels like a slight overstep to applying your own subjective view of the source rather than the objective consensus view. Thanks again for explaining the facts behind your reasoning. I hope you have a great day.

22: 458:, which would seem to apply in the cases I spot-checked; where the article says "actor X said X, Y Z about their role/storyline/whatever fact", these would seem to be appropriate. In many of these cases, it wouldn't be possible to find a different RS. If there are alternatives, they would likely be a similar (or even the same) interview reported by another tabloid. It doesn't seem proportionate to set a bar so high that an article can't possibly reach it. 1085: 1037: 989: 239: 191: 143: 95: 731: 289: 405: 584:

perhaps going too far into details better suited to a series or fandom wiki rather than a general Knowledge (XXG) article? Thank you also for the invitation to join in with GA reviewing, this is certainly something I would be interested in when I have the time and a more confident grasp of Knowledge (XXG) policies. Best regards

941: 439:

read the linked entries in the perennial RS list and the related discussions, and the guidelines for assessing Good Article Nominations, and several essays also. The end of which is I think that while it's admiral to want quality sources, you might have been hasty in quickly closing those nominations.

583:

Thank you very much for this clear and thorough explanation. I feel I have a much greater understanding now of Good Article guidance and how Dr.Swag Lord's decisions are clearly supported by it. If I can rephrase one of your points to check my understanding, applying 3b here is judging the article is

627:

Hello SW, Saw your review of my GA nomination and have addressed a lot of the issues. I agree with the assessment that some of the sources are questionable and have done my best to get that all fixed up. While some have been used in GA articles one nomajesty was too sketch to stay so I removed it. I

438:

Hello there. I have been looking at the Good Article drive to try and understand how reviewing works so I can learn and possibly get involved in the future. I noticed that you quickly closed several nominations on TV soap characters on the grounds of RS problems. This sent me down a rabbit hole as I

504:

Thanks for replying and explaining you were acting on guidance from the coordinator. I think you and I are perhaps drawing the line in different places to an extent, but that's OK and I'll not try too hard to convince you to draw the line elsewhere. In terms of the Metro, I may not agree with you,

461:

I hope you take this message in the spirit intended - please understand that I'm mainly coming from a place of "slightly confused and trying to understand how this works" rather than intending to be critical of you (assuming good faith). I don't know what country you're from and how much you know

545:

the reliability is questionable, rather than a clearer expression of reliable or unreliable. I agree with you that tabloids are probably more reliable for reporting on soaps than they are for most other reporting, and tabloids is also where I'd expect to find critical responses (ie, reviews of

462:

about British TV soaps. If there are any guidelines on judging sourcing for GANs that I've missed or am not aware of, I'd be glad to know. I'm also keeping an eye out of course for an Experienced editor to look at those articles to see what they might have to say. Best regards

878: 598:

Yes, something that goes really exhaustively into details about individual characters is fandom wiki territory. We're more interested in what secondary sources have to say about a topic, like in academic articles, retrospective journalism, that sort of thing. --

849:, never heard of it in my life but it has enough scholarly citations so I think it would survive AfD. You could add {{fringe section}} at the top if you think it’s warranted. You could also bring it to the attention of 34: 485:

based on questionable sources? Their response: “quick fail it”. If those articles contained, say, only 2-3 references to Metro or Daily Mirror then I certainly would not have failed it! But those articles were

348: 541:, popping in as one of the backlog drive co-ordinators, I think it's fair to call a "no consensus" result in an RS discussion a "questionable" source. The discussion ends up at "no consensus" precisely 332: 454:, which is clearly 'Deprecated'). Furthermore, looking at the list of discussions, 8 and 10 both show some support for using it in soap articles. (3) In the RS article, it says 830:

I came across it during NPR, somehow it ended up within the STEM section. I cannot decide what to do, it is probably Fringe philosophy but should I leave it, AfD it or...?

351:

after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

481:: Hi and thank you for your note. Before the start of the July backlog drive, I asked the main coordinator a simple question: how should we evaluate an article that is 747: 523:

Yes, maybe going to RSN and trying to get a clearer consensus on the matter would help settle future reviews/reassessments. I hope you have a good day too.

788:- perhaps I will try nominating it for FA when I have the bandwidth to make it more comprehensive (and might reach out to seek your feedback then). Best, 558:

of content sourced to these unreliable or marginally reliable sources is a problem. Personally, I think that also hints at a breadth/depth issue, per 3b:

296: 46: 41: 725: 892:

Your noteworthy contribution (24.5 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 160 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation.

743: 565:

By the way, as a careful and thoughtful reader yourself, you're welcome to join GA reviewing whenever you like. We'd love to have you! --

446:

shows a 'No Consensus' symbol next to it in the table. Therefore, rejecting it out of hand does not seem justified by evidence. (2) the

198: 21: 739: 387: 102: 408:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

589: 510: 467: 970: 907: 735: 955:

Congratulations on winning the Content Review Medal of Merit award for reviewing the most articles of any participants.

455: 352: 338: 710: 376: 585: 538: 520: 506: 478: 463: 58: 1092: 721: 714: 391: 380: 317: 308: 246: 562:. If the information can only be sourced to tabloids, we might be looking at insignificant/unnecessary detail. 443: 854: 808: 781: 699: 676: 662: 644: 633: 524: 491: 335:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 451: 450:

shows a 'Generally unreliable' symbol next to it, true. But that doesn't mean 'Do not use' (compare with

1044: 301: 150: 313:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 926: 604: 570: 490:

based on such sources. That’s not acceptable. I hope I managed to explain my reasoning a bit better!

1105: