Talk:Mike Edwards (American journalist)/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 20:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Will be working on this week through this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

After a quick review, I'm quick-failing this. There's serious core issues with this article that are beyond a GA review to address. The main one is coverage and sourcing. The vast majority of citations are to primary sources, and then a bunch to an un-factchecked obituary likely written by family or friends. These are not great sources to use, let alone as extensively as is. Frankly, it's tough to tell if he's actually notable, because the general notability guideline coverage here is weak. You've got a New York Times article where he's merely mentioned (the focus is on the photographer), an alumni mag, stray newspaper mentions as a student, and then Atlanta Journal-Constitution articles (which, as he was an editor, doesn't really seem independent enough for notability purposes.) If this article should exist as an independent page, it needs a complete sourcing overhaul before it can be considered for good article status. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @David Fuchs, I appreciate your time and comments. I also understand your pass on GA status. However, I disagree with your interpretation of Wikipedia policy regarding sources. WP:PRIMARY says "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" and "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label..." My use of Nat Geo and newspapers to document Edwards' articles and job titles falls under this allowable usage. With regards to an obituary as a source, again, I understand your concern. However, WP:OBITUARIES says, "Obituaries published by high-quality reliable sources are often treated as valuable sources for articles on deceased individuals, since they provide a broad overview of the subject's life." Yes, there are cautions to the use of obituaries. For that reason, there are only two papers that are generally consider reliable with regards to obituaries because they are selective and will not publish all submissions--The New York Times and The Washington Post. Both also still write or rewrite obituaries. You cannot always tell, but a lack of flowery prose and puffery are clues. This obit was from the Post and was written in a journalist style, with a lack of puffery. You are correct that I probably cited the obit too many times, or at least more than I had realized, but most of these citations were paired with second reference that provided similar or identical information. This article may not meet the standard for GA but it certain meets notability because of the connection to Nat Geo and an obituary in the Post. Nevertheless, I will eventually go back and look for other coverage of Edwards. I have worked on several articles on editors of major newspapers and magazines; they are often quite important culturally but rarely get written up until they retire or die. In this instance, we have references demonstrating numererous cover stories for Nat Geo which has a global circulation that is 6.5 million today. 172.58.252.133 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * From PRIMARY: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. (my emphasis added.) The problem isn't that the article uses some primary sources, it's that it is far and away reliant almost entirely on them for the vast majority of the actual content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)