Talk:Park51/GA1

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

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 21:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Review
Hello,

Unfortunately, this article has citation problems; it has both too many cites, and not enough cites.

Where cites are given, there are as many as nine cites in a clump. WP policy is a maximum of three cites at once. If you are finding varying bits of proof in nine different sources, you need more than a single sentence to present them. Piling up duplicate sources to emphasize the reality of the subject is overkill WP:OVERKILL. This needs to be remedied. I realize this is a contentious subject, but overemphasis will not prove any more convincing than a straightforward presentation.

There are also some paras that still need citations.

Per the review instructions, this GAN is a quick fail. With correction of these problems, the article will again be suitable for GAN.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:CITEKILL is an essay, not a policy, as noted by the banner of the top. The paras that "need citations" were appropriately cited; if you had done a proper review, you would have seen that these "unsourced" statements were summaries for the rest of the section. So this shouldn't have been a quick fail, and I have renominated this article. epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that it took nine differing sources to produce a single sentence. And WP standards call for a minimum of a cite at the end of every para. Why not prepare the article for review ahead of time instead of waiting in queue to do so?Georgejdorner (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did. I'm pretty sure you didn't read the article at all, given that six of eight statements were summaries for the section. And OVERKILL is not a policy, so technically I can ignore it as I please. But the problem here is that the nine citations were bundled up at the end of the paragraph, which is why I determined that you hadn't read the article, and sent this back to the queue. epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't have to read an article to spot the missing cites that show an article was submitted prematurely. You only have to scan it.
 * As for using nine cites to prove a single point, it looks desperate. Given that you are writing on a contentious subject, you may believe the more cites, the more impressive. But it isn't. It's just sloppy.
 * You have won the special exemption to which you feel you are entitled, given that cites are required for pretty much all WP material. Why not be content with your special status as you go on your merry way ignoring the standards?Georgejdorner (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I'll keep on being a WikiDiva™ and whine for absolutely no reason about an article being failed because of two misplaced citations. In fact, I'll just submit obviously flawed articles without a care as to whether they are eligible, just to clog up the queue for more deserving noms that are fully cited! And while I'm at it, why not do something absolutely stupid and place 15 citations in front of a clearly controversial statement?!?
 * Maybe you should drop the stick and do something productive. Like actually review a nomination rather than quick-failing articles to run up your review count. epicgenius (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)