Talk:Superstition in Turkey

Review
You've made a lot of good progress! Things to do: Good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * create a WP:LEAD/introduction section
 * make sure each paragraph has a reference (or references)
 * format references to make sure they have title, date, etc.

Scientific research publishing
Some content is being removed because there are claims that is an unreliable source (predatory open access journal). It would be good to provide a proof of that claim - what basis do you have to say it is a predatory OAJ? And even if it is, where is the WP:RS part or a WP:RSN conclusion that states those are not acceptable sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Read our article on Scientific Research Publishing. It absolutely is unreliable. A fair proportion of our links to this publisher are added by the article authors themselves, in fact. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The company is not particularly reliable, yes, but I still don't see which part of our policies allows us to say it is below the threshold for WP:RS. Yes, RS does caution against predatory OAJ, but it doesn't say they cannot be used. Like all sources, we have to consider this in more detail. If it was medical research, I'd agree that POAJ should be banned on sight. But this is a low key cultural studies topic with little controversy. The article seems ok - hardly good quality, but I don't see any obvious errors there or anything that would mark it as problematic. Being published by POAJ should not disqualify the work. If you want to have this removed, you should show a consensus from WP:RSN that this article is unreliable, or consensus from WP:RS that everything published in POAJ is not acceptable on sight. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It has no peer-review. It is basically self-publishing. You pay the fee, your paper goes in, regardless of merit. That fails WP:RS. This is not a controversial view (check at WP:RSN if you like). Guy (Help!) 00:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The article in question (btw, two links to copies of the same text :-) is an extremely naive work by a nobody student. It does have the basic facts straight, because the author cites them from reliable sources rather than from her own research. Therefore a proper approach is to pinch the "morsels of wisdom" from this article and trace them to good sources, some of which are cited there (such as "kurşun dökme"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs) 10:09, December 22, 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the constructive suggestion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)