Talk:Empire Express

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Is Blue Rectangle a reliable source?

Is the website bluerectangle.com a reliable source per WP:RS. I repaired the dead link for Empire Express#cite_note-4, but the page appears to be a user review. If this is the case, it would not be acceptable as a reliable source per WP:UGC. Is anyone able to provide more information about this review? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix Marchjuly. Blue Rectangle's FAQ is archived here, confirming that the reviews are user generated (obviously a noted literary critic could just happen to have been the person who provided this particular review on their own time, but it's not feasible for us to operate on such possibilities when all we have is negative evidence).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking on that Fuhghettaboutit. The sentence being supported by that citation seems more like a plot recap then an interpretation/evaluation so I'm not sure what to do with the source. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, an unreliable source should always be removed, even if the content it is purportedly used to verify is uncontroversial; it's worse than no source because it gives an imprimatur of it being properly verified when we define such sources as generally incapable of serving that function reliably. In other words, unless you challenge the content as well (WP:BURDEN), you can remove the source and leave the content to be verified by something better (of course, finding a better source and using that is welcome). In this case though, the book itself is a primary source for its content/plot. This is a sort of exception we have carved out because of the nature of things like films and books. See, e.g., MOS:PLOT.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that think the source should go. I just wasn't sure if a {{citation needed}} should be added since it is just a plot summary. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]