Talk:Won (As Friends Rust album)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: VickKiang (talk · contribs) 22:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. VickKiang (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

- Refs are cited in the lede, which isn't needed.

- Lots of refs are sourced from the primary ref As Friends Rust, but that’s probably acceptable. Still, lots of refs are non-RS, not all affects 2b, but they are very poor:

• adequacy.net – no editorial controls at all (which is needed to be RS), see also this page. It explicitly states that they are all volunteers and are not professional.
• antimusic.com- clearly unreliable, there isn’t even an about us page (which even most non-RS websites have), not to say the lack of editorial control.
• eastcoastromper.com – a dated, non-RS fanzine without any editorial policies at all.
• punknews.org- Excepting for a contact us and about us page providing a list of editors with nothing else (no editorial control, policies, FAQs…, this isn’t an RS.
• wasteofmind.de- no editorial control, just a short about us page indicating the work is just mainly done by a few writers, along with freelancers that isn’t mentioned, they even say that Waste of Mind started as a fanzine and will remain a fanzine.
• abridgedpause.com- not defunct and still live now, marked as a “blog”, which is already indicative of a SPS, so non-RS. Per about us page, it’s just operated by one person, so clearly non-reliable.
• helldriver-magazine.de- the definition of a SPS, dated-looking website without any about us pages, editorial policies, nor FAQs.
• 4P-fanzine.de- another non-RS, no editorial policies or about us pages.
• freespeech.org
• nuskull.hu – apparently a magazine, and not that bad compared to the other refs mentioned above, current site has advertising guidelines but no editorial policies.
• wmtdzine.nl – non-RS zine, no editorial policies at all, now apparently defunct
• Reflections – another questionable, non-professional zine
• Youtube.com- non-official channels are SPS per WP:RSP
• evenstarbooking.com- non-RS without editorial policies
• Allmusic- only situational per WP:RSP
• Punk Planet – questionable zine
• stillholdingon.net- has a questionable about page and FAQ, but no editorial policies, per here, a fanzine written by just one person.
• idioteq.com -- DIY online fanzine
• throughtheseeyes.net- no editorial policies or about us page, now defunct
• veganhardcore.de- non-RS, without any editorial policies- has an advertising page but no policies
• allschools.de – non-RS, no about us or editorial policies page again
• indulged.com- non-RS, without any about us or editorial policies
• punknation.com- no editorial policies or about us
• Moloko Plus 20- questionable fanzine
• pastepunk.com- no links to any editorial policies or about us in the archived version, certainly SPS. Current site has an about us page, nothing else…
• roterfaden.org- dated site again with no editorial policies or FAQs.
• undevoured.com- non-RS without policies or about us, now defunct.
• hcmagazine.com
• dfbpunk.com- again, no editorial policies, except for terms and conditions and privacy policy, but no editorial policies nor about us.
• CORE Ground Hardcore Fanzine- another fanzine
• indieuprising.com- defunct, no editorial policies
• smallpunk.com- no policies, defunct site
• sellfish.inserteffekt.com- no policies nor about us page
• mainstage.de- has policy page and contact, but no about us nor editorial policies
• helldriver-magazine.de/- questionable magazine, current site still lacks any policies nor about us.
• motorhorst.de- again non-RS
• truepunk.com- clearly non-RS, current site has an iffy about us page that sometimes couldn’t be accessed.

@Bricks&Wood: This is just a very quick ref check, but it seems clear that more than half of the article, especially the bulk of the reception section, which needs RS per 2b as it is published opinion, is sourced from these clearly non-RS. The article's detail is also unnecessarily long due to the tons of unreliable refs (in particular the reception section), which IMO fails 3b (to meet GA, IMHO the article need to be significantly trimmed to meet 2b and 3b). Because of the dependence on non-RS, the reception section is overly positive (great deal of positive critical acclaim upon the album's release but poorly backed up, as almost all of these sources are generally reliable self-published sources (indeed, the critical acclaim was just cited based on one (!) unreliable source; same with with lots of heart and sincerity, just backed up by one non-RS). So I'm quick failing, please read in more detail WP:RS and WP:SPS before resubmitting again for GA, these concerns need to be addressed.

P.S. In the previous GA, it was contended that any website not entirely self-published (such as on WordPress) and not challenged could be considered an RS. This is false, as most editors IMO need a site to have about us and editorial policies to be ocnsidered an RS. WP:RSN is a great place for help, but these refs are obviously unreliable that I don't think editors there would have different opinions. VickKiang (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

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. 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:
· · ·