Talk:The Soxaholix/GA2
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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)