Talk:Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA2

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

GA re-assessment. I recommend that this article be de-listed as it relies primarily on non-reliable sources, mainly oikotimes.com and esctoday.com which are fan sites/ multiperson blogs, which fail to meet the WP:RS criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Although ESCToday and Oikotimes are fan-run, they are far from unreliable. They take news from national braodcasters, newspapers and others reliable sources from around Europe and allow Eurovision fans to see them without having to search throughout the web for information. I fail to see how you can call it non-reliable. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the sources do meet the criteria for RS, and per the discussion here, I believe the only thing necessary is to diversify some of the sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to disagree, however the burden of proof regarding the verifiability of these sources as reliable is on the editors who use them. I quote from the guidelines:
 * Self-published sources (online and paper)
 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.


 * Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.


 * Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.


 * esctoday.com is referred to as a fansite by reliable sources e.g. The Independent, The Washington Post , The Daily Telegraph . I can find no reliable sources citing oikotimes or any of its "senior editors".  Both are fansites and/or group blogs and thus are not reliable sources.


 * What is needed is proof that these sources are reliable, rather than statements or assumptions that they are. No such proof has been presented so far, either here or at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I would have thought that the official Eurovision site, the Swiss media and other international media should have sufficient coverage to provide suitable references for all of the facts cited from esctoday and oikotimes. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been presented with all the proof necessary. A discussion by the relevant wikiproject found the sites to pass the criteria for RS here and additionally the only comments from the reliable source noticeboard were in defense of the sources with only you opposing their reliability. For now, as far as wikipedia is concerned, the sources are valid and reliable as established through consensus. I will be more than happy to address any other issues with the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite the statement above, no proof has been presented that tehsesources are reliable. The discussion at the Eurovision Wikiproject focussed on the reliability of esckaz, not esctoday or oikotimes. No-one except User:Grk1011 has asserted reliability at WP:Reiliable sources/Noticeboard.  No attempt has been made to find reliable sourecs, other than the one inserted by myself. Consequently, I am delisting this article, re-assessed as C. If you disagree with this decision it may be contested at WP:GAR]] Jezhotwells (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)