Talk:Earthsuit/GA1

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

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Looks Ok against quick fail criteria, on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * The article is referenced, BUT ....
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Ref #1 is an on-line shop, not an RS; ref #10 is a ministry, as is ref #11, not an RS; ref #27  myspace blogs are not RS; Other sources such as Jesus Freak and CCM may just be judged reliable, I will assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Ref #1 is an on-line shop, not an RS; ref #10 is a ministry, as is ref #11, not an RS; ref #27  myspace blogs are not RS; Other sources such as Jesus Freak and CCM may just be judged reliable, I will assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref #1 is solely being used to verify the comments of the band members. If the interview was fictional, Sparrow Records would have retaliated with some sort of libel lawsuit.
 * ref #10 and #11 are published by Cross Rhythms. While they may be ministry minded at times, those references are examples of  CCM reporting in the UK as per their vision. They are considered a reliable and respectable news source in Christian music à la Jesus Freak Hideout and CCM Magazine.
 * I replaced the myspace reference.


 * -- I hope this satisfies your concerns. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't, I don't think you have grasped the concept of reliable sources. Please provide evidence of how these sources are considered reliable by other reliable sources. This has nothing to do with how such sources may be considered within a particular religious community. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, Cross Rhythms is a reliable magazine source; I'm an active member of the Christian music WikiProject and use this as a reference frequently. I agree with you that FamilyChristian.com should be replaced, but Cross Rhythms is definitely an RS.  Jamie ☆ S93  19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think Cross Rhytyms are OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The FamilyChristian.com interview is irreplaceable and I fail to see why it cannot remain. The website has conducted numerous interviews with other Christian artists which establishes notability and reliability. Normally, I would agree with both of you; a webstore is not typically considered a reliable source of information. But considering their broad coverage with CCM artists and the weight this reference carries, I believe an exception should be made. Regards -- Noj r (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FamilyChristian.com is a shop and cannot be considered a reliable source. As a commercial organisation statements on its web site are likely to be promotional material for the merchandise it is selling, thus it is not a reliable source. If you insist on retaining this source then I will fail the Good Article nomination. The fact that you cannot find another source is irrelevant.  If material cannot be supported by RS then it should be removed from the encyclopaedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead and fail the nomination. The idea that this website hosts interviews to generate interest isn't unbelievable. Yes, "statements on its web site are likely to be promotional material for the merchandise it is selling," but these sourced statements were not made by FamilyChristian.com! They are statements made by Earthsuit, a band unaffiliated with the site. If any statements made by the interviewees were false, these people would have been slapped with a lawsuit long ago. Not that arguing matters, you've already made up your mind. Cheers -- Noj r (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days whilst above concernes are met. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the nominator wishes to include a non-reliable source, I will fail this nomination. This can be challenged at WP:GAR or the references can be re-sourced to reliable sources and the article can be renominated at WP:GAN. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days whilst above concernes are met. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the nominator wishes to include a non-reliable source, I will fail this nomination. This can be challenged at WP:GAR or the references can be re-sourced to reliable sources and the article can be renominated at WP:GAN. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days whilst above concernes are met. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the nominator wishes to include a non-reliable source, I will fail this nomination. This can be challenged at WP:GAR or the references can be re-sourced to reliable sources and the article can be renominated at WP:GAN. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)