Talk:Ash Panesar/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Dr. Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hello. I will begin reviewing this article soon. 11:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As explained in Nish Panesar I'll have to withdraw this nomination. Major apoloies for any inconveniences. FishLoveHam (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again for your work on the articles. Since I had already had my review written up for this article, I might as well insert it to help the future nominator correct the issues in the article:

Main concern: Once again, as with Talk:Gray Atkins/GA1 and Talk:Nish Panesar/GA1, my main concern relates to the sheer amount of tabloid sources in article:


 * Metro (cited 30+ times): Please see METRO
 * Daily Mirror (cited 10+ times): Please see DAILYMIRROR
 * MyLondon (cited 2 times): MyLondon is the same tabloid owned by the Daily Mirror, Daily Star, etc., so it likely inherits the same level of reliability.

Given that the vast majority of this article is cited to tabloids, I must quick fail this article as it is a long way from meeting the GA criteria. To make the same clarification as my prior reviews: if a clear consensus emerges that these tabloids are in fact RSs on soap operas, then I’ll happily reverse my decision and someone else may nominate this article to GA again. Thank you once more for your work! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think Daily Mirror as a source is a big deal since its a situational source unlike Metro. 🍕  Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 09:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely not as bad as Metro but 10+ citations to such a low-quality source is excessive, imo. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)