Talk:Nish Panesar/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Dr.Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hi, I'll be happy to review this article. 10:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: 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:
· · ·

Main concern: Due to the incredible poor amount of sources--mostly tabloids-- this article falls well short of a GA. I understand we're dealing with a fictional character, but there are still many WP:BLP claims in this article so strong sourcing is a must. Sourcing concerns include:

Metro (cited 12 times): Please see WP:METRO. Low-quality tabloids will never meet RS standards
Daily Mirror (cited 6 times): Please see WP:DAILYMIRROR. While not as bad as Metro, the Daily Mirror falls short of GA standards
MyLondon (cited 2 times): MyLondon is published by the same company as the Daily Mirror (and Daily Star, Daily Express, etc.) and likely inherits the same level of reliability
Ok! (cited 1 time): OK! magazine is a celebrity tabloid, gossip magazine.
Inside Soap (cited 13 times): I am not very familiar with this source, and it doesn't appear anywhere in RSN, but if this is the cover, then I do not have high hopes.
New! (cited 4 times): New! is another tabloid owned by the same company as Ok!, the Daily Mirror, Daily Star, etc. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the sheer amount of questionable sources, I will unfortunately need to quick fail this article. Since I am still new to GA reviews, I will let a more experienced reviewer close this. Thank you and good luck on the article! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Soap is a magazine which gets information directly from the soaps press and includes cast interviews, announcements, etc. Opinions in it are separate and independent.
Metro's soaps department is separate from the rest of the newspaper and gets its information directly from the soap operas and thus is reliable. Additionally, opinions expressed are from well-regarded critics, opinions are fine as long as they are presented as such. Metro has a reliable soaps department.
With the others, it is not libeous information that has been included, Information in reception should be okay as it doesn't need to adhere BLP standards as it is only opinions.

Thanks for taking on the review, but research on sources is important, especially when you aren't familiar with the subject. FishLoveHam (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there’s no “soaps” exemption for Metro at RSP. I’m simply going by current consensus on the sources. If opinions are published in non-reliable sources then those opinions are simply not WP:DUE. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe this article is a fail in its current state, it is not impossible to fix. I will give the nominator the standard 7 days to fix the sourcing concerns. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a bullet point list to make it more clear. I'd really appreciate it. FishLoveHam (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think I'll have to withdraw the nomination. I won't have the time to address the issues, and I'd rather someone involved in the soap opera WikiProject cover it. Major apoloies for any inconvenience this has caused. FishLoveHam (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FishLoveHam, absolutely no need to apologize and there is no inconvenience whatsoever. You have done fine work with this article and I’m confident once the sourcing issues clear up, this will definitely be a GA one day. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, you've got 5 checked reviews now, so go ahead and close all your open ones. -- asilvering (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.