Talk:David Meerman Scott/GA3

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

This article has a severe issue with sources and quotes. Of the 5 cites in the Lead, all of them are the subject himself - 1) a press release his company issued, 2) his own website, 3 + 4 + 5) his own books. The second paragraph starts with the omniscient sentence "The book was inspired by an accidental discovery..." with no cite at all. In fact, of the 75 cites there are about 20-22 valid RS (Boston Globe, NYT, other books) but the majority are the subject's own books, YouTube, Tweets, Facebook, blogs, and the subject's own GooglePlus and posts. This is inverted ratio; it definitely lends to the whole article having a marketing tone. As a BLP, all the material in the article needs a reliable source. Primary sources should be used sparingly. Information that doesn't have an RS should be blanked. EBY (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review
 :

:

:

.

. :



Discussion

 * I addressed all of these issues in your prior, inconclusive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Meerman_Scott/GA2 . I'm not sure why we're starting over here. Also you still don't seem to have absorbed "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" WP:SELFPUB. This now feels like harassment esp. your phrase on my talk page "you or your project" Woz2 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Woz2, let me address your concerns:
 * Because the community-based Good Article review went nowhere, I initiated the individual based one.
 * Whatever has happened previously, the issues are there now. Policy on WP:SELFPUB 5: "the article is not based primarily on such sources". But ALL the cites in the opening paragraphs are SELFPUB. I would say that meets criteria of "based primarily."
 * If you firmly feel this article stands as a GA with these sources, then let's call an RfC or 3O and get more input.
 * The phrase on your talk page that feels like harassment is actually the standard template from Step 4 of the Individual Assessment process at WP:GAR. Nothing is meant by it except a polite heads-up.
 * Finally, let me say I would have fixed some of these cites myself but couldn't find the right RS to support the article as written in a pretty wide search.
 * EBY (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, our views are irreconcilable, so please ask for a third opinion. I don't believe that a book published by John Wiley counts as self-published (see WP:SPS for what is considered self-published) and I cannot conceive how quoting an article in Forbes ("point the way forward") could possibly constitute OR.Woz2 (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ...in addition, from WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" My emphasis. Woz2 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment
This was originally opened by EBY3221 on July 9, 2013, and the final comment was made the following day by Woz2, the primary author of the article. Neither are still editing on Wikipedia: Woz2 became a vanished user in June 2014; EBY3221 was blocked indefinitely in September 2015. Since the reassessment has been abandoned for over three years and neither can continue, I'm closing this individual assessment today; the only way I can close it is as "kept". However, I think some of the concerns were cogent, so I will be opening a community reassessment after this individual assessment has closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)