Talk:Won (As Friends Rust album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The FUR for File:As Friends Rust - Morningleaver - This Is Me Hating You.jpg doesn't seem strong enough to me. What does the reader gain from seeing this image that they can't gain through words alone?
punknews.org -- per WP:A/S, we should only use staff reviews. I see the "staff picks" tag on one citation but I don't know if that means it's a staff review; I've posted a query. Update: there's already a response and it looks like that one is OK. I also see other uses of punknews.org that are not staff reviews and should be removed.
Youtube is not a reliable source unless it's an official channel of a reliable source.
What makes the following reliable sources?
- adequacy.net -- per this page this is not a professional organization.
- antimusic.com
- eastcoastromper.com -- seems to be a zine
- wasteofmind.de
- abridgedpause.com
- helldriver-magazine.de
- 4P-fanzine.de
- freespeech.org
- nuskull.hu -- seems to have substantial history but I can't see anything about editorial control
- wmtdzine.nl -- is a zine
- Reflections -- reasonable looking magazine but per the masthead it seems semiprofessional at best
- ox-fanzine.de -- another zine
- Punk Planet -- per our article on it it's a zine
- stillholdingon.net
- noecho.net
- idioteq.com -- describes itself as a DIY online magazine
- throughtheseeyes.net
- veganhardcore.de
- allschools.de -- appears to be a site run by three friends
- indulged.com
- Moloko Plus 20
- pastepunk.com
- roterfaden.org
- undevoured.com
- hcmagazine.com
- dfbpunk.com

I'm going to stop there; I got to about FN 95. I'm afraid I'm going to fail this immediately -- many of these are clearly unreliable; probably most, but even if half are salvageable the article would need significant work. You can ask about reliable sources for music at WT:ALBUMS and you'll get knowledgeable help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between WP:Notable sources and WP:Reliable sources. A website does not have to be notable to be considered reliable. Any non-self-hosted website is an accepted reliable source, unless it has been brought up as questionable on Wikipedia. There is no reason to automatically assume they are unreliable sources simply because you never heard of them. Several of the ones you pointed out were well-respected webzines and magazines (with a large followings) at the time that this album was released. Also, before quickly failing a GA, it is customary to provide the nominating user with a reasonable explanation of why you are doing so. Merely stating "article would need significant work" is not constructive feedback.--Bricks&Wood talk 04:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the different between reliability and notability. I failed the article not because I didn't recognize those sources, but because I was sure many of them were not reliable -- in my view the nomination was "a long way from meeting" criteria 2b, to quote the "Immediate failures" section of WP:GACR. The form of words I used, "what makes these reliable?" did not mean I wasn't sure about some of them. "Any non-self-hosted website is an accepted reliable source" is not true, and I suggest you start a conversation about these sources at WT:ALBUMS if you think so. To make this article meet the reliable source requirement for GA is going to require work to cut those sources out, along with the material they cite; that is constructive feedback. You are also welcome to post at WT:GAN if you still think this was an inappropriate fail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]