Talk:Impalement/GA2

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

Reviewer: PraetorianFury (talk · contribs) 21:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already read this article from top to bottom and fixed or helped to fix any outstanding errors that I could find. User:Arildnordby has poured his heart into this article and the quality is a clear reflection of that passion. This seems to clearly meet our WP:Good article criteria, so it has my endorsement. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If I should be a bit self-critical here, I think that a primary objection would be source quality, relative to Wikipedia reliability requirements. First off, I'd say that the major reason why not more contemporary authors have been used is that, in contrast to old sources, such sources have been damned hard to find (rather than that I haven't looked for them). Essentially, the problem I have encountered is that for such an obscure (and, frankly, disgusting) topic, there won't exist any widely available monograph on the topic, and that for modern treatments, scholarly elements that would distinctly improve the article will be found either in the form of scattered references in more general history books, or in specialized articles in peer-reviewed magazines, none of which, unfortunately, is directly available to me as an amateur. This, I believe, forecloses and prohibits, that the article can be taken to Featured Article status (although I hope future editors can bring, gradually those references into the article), but for Good Article status? Here, I think the crux lies on regarding the Reliability issue as a spectrum, in which Wikipedia editors ALWAYS ought to seek the best sources available, but if tose are lacking/hard to find, at the very least opt for sufficiently reliable sources to include. That is, a source can be regarded as "reliable", even though it is not what we optimally wish for. In the preparatory work of this article, loads of references have been rejected either as fantastical, dubious, or just as secondary, in the last case where I have tried my best to find the primary source. However, that other editors and reviewers at Wikipedia might have issues at such points is quite likely, and I hope this reviewing process might be constructive in that regard.Arildnordby (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion: While use of primary sources is not ideal, as Arildnorby has said, the claims they're being used to support are fairly mundane (or at least not controversial) and trivially verifiable. I don't foresee any editorial disputes resulting from a lack of sources. I'm satisfied that what is present in the article at this point meets the Good Article Criteria, so I have passed this article. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)