Talk:District Railway/GA1

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

Reviewer: Obtund (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Status
''This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Any questions and comments concerning this table should be posed in Discussion subsection below.''

This article was quickfailed for the following reason:
 * 1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Verifiability.
 * a. All the sources are books except for twelve sources.
 * b. There is no way to verify almost all of the sources since they are from books.
 * c. Five of the online sources were the London Gazette which makes accuracy plausible.

Disscussion
Dispute
 * Please read Verifiability, I draw your attention to WP:SOURCES and I quote "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form);" and fromWP:SOURCEACCESS "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources." There are subjects that have no reliable on-line sources. Edgepedia (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to look at Verifiability, level two subsection Accessibility, level three subsection Access to sources. It clearly states, "Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." The references you give are books that frankly I am unable to access. Ob tund Talk 12:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear God. Failed because the sources are books? That's the first time I've ever seen an article fail GA for that reason. Are there no libraries where these may be borrowed? You might as well put NBR 224 and 420 Classes up for WP:GAR, because it has exactly one online source. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked and no I could not get them, but if you know an editor who does have all these books, then by all means he can review it. Ob tund Talk 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I have:
 * plus different editions of:
 * and I expect I could easily obtain the following:
 * through either libraries or second-hand booksellers. However the following are over 25 years old so may be more difficult:
 * But I have a COI: I am a contributor to the article, so am debarred from reviewing it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't and since you seem to be the only editor who has, go review the article! Ob tund Talk 00:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am debarred under Good article nominations/guidelines, second bullet.
 * I feel that I must raise this matter at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 17 -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * and I expect I could easily obtain the following:
 * through either libraries or second-hand booksellers. However the following are over 25 years old so may be more difficult:
 * But I have a COI: I am a contributor to the article, so am debarred from reviewing it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't and since you seem to be the only editor who has, go review the article! Ob tund Talk 00:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am debarred under Good article nominations/guidelines, second bullet.
 * I feel that I must raise this matter at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 17 -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But I have a COI: I am a contributor to the article, so am debarred from reviewing it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't and since you seem to be the only editor who has, go review the article! Ob tund Talk 00:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am debarred under Good article nominations/guidelines, second bullet.
 * I feel that I must raise this matter at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 17 -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't and since you seem to be the only editor who has, go review the article! Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 00:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am debarred under Good article nominations/guidelines, second bullet.
 * I feel that I must raise this matter at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 17 -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What a complete nonsense. Reviewer is inexperienced and out to lunch. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell? - Obtund please read well the policies before doing this kind of big mistakes. If you are about to review an article at GA is because you understand the policies involved in the process, and for what i've seen above, you aren't. Same with your review of Samsung Galaxy S III. Regards. — Hahc 21  20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just found that the same reviewer had previously quickfailed Talk:Elementary algebra/GA1 for almost exactly the same reasons... there are only two real differences, these being the number of non-book sources, and whether London Gazette is mentioned or not. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)