User talk:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Havana syndrome&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Andy Ngo&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 17:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Gavin Williamson&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Alexander the Great&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Answers Research Journal
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Answers Research Journal
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Answers Research Journal you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ldm1954 -- Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Tabloid newspapers as sources in soap articles
Hello there. I have been looking at the Good Article drive to try and understand how reviewing works so I can learn and possibly get involved in the future. I noticed that you quickly closed several nominations on TV soap characters on the grounds of RS problems. This sent me down a rabbit hole as I read the linked entries in the perennial RS list and the related discussions, and the guidelines for assessing Good Article Nominations, and several essays also. The end of which is I think that while it's admiral to want quality sources, you might have been hasty in quickly closing those nominations.

I came to this conclusion because: (1) the WP:DAILYMIRROR shows a 'No Consensus' symbol next to it in the table. Therefore, rejecting it out of hand does not seem justified by evidence. (2) the WP:METRO shows a 'Generally unreliable' symbol next to it, true. But that doesn't mean 'Do not use' (compare with WP:DAILYMAIL, which is clearly 'Deprecated'). Furthermore, looking at the list of discussions, 8 and 10 both show some support for using it in soap articles. (3) In the RS article, it says WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which would seem to apply in the cases I spot-checked; where the article says "actor X said X, Y Z about their role/storyline/whatever fact", these would seem to be appropriate. In many of these cases, it wouldn't be possible to find a different RS. If there are alternatives, they would likely be a similar (or even the same) interview reported by another tabloid. It doesn't seem proportionate to set a bar so high that an article can't possibly reach it.

I hope you take this message in the spirit intended - please understand that I'm mainly coming from a place of "slightly confused and trying to understand how this works" rather than intending to be critical of you (assuming good faith). I don't know what country you're from and how much you know about British TV soaps. If there are any guidelines on judging sourcing for GANs that I've missed or am not aware of, I'd be glad to know. I'm also keeping an eye out of course for an Experienced editor to look at those articles to see what they might have to say. Best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @JustAnotherCompanion: Hi and thank you for your note. Before the start of the July backlog drive, I asked the main coordinator a simple question: how should we evaluate an article that is mostly based on questionable sources? Their response: “quick fail it”. If those articles contained, say, only 2-3 references to Metro or Daily Mirror then I certainly would not have failed it! But those articles were predominantly based on such sources. That’s not acceptable. I hope I managed to explain my reasoning a bit better! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying and explaining you were acting on guidance from the coordinator. I think you and I are perhaps drawing the line in different places to an extent, but that's OK and I'll not try too hard to convince you to draw the line elsewhere. In terms of the Metro, I may not agree with you, but at least I understand you (it is perhaps a discussion that TVSOAP editors need to take back to RSN again, given that I also spot-checked a number of existing GA in the area subsequently, and got the impression that if they were reviewed to the sourcing standards you applied then they would all be delisted.). The only remaining quibble I have is that you're describing the Mirror as a 'questionable source' when the table clearly says 'No consensus'. That feels like a slight overstep to applying your own subjective view of the source rather than the objective consensus view. Thanks again for explaining the facts behind your reasoning. I hope you have a great day. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @JustAnotherCompanion Yes, maybe going to RSN and trying to get a clearer consensus on the matter would help settle future reviews/reassessments. I hope you have a good day too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @JustAnotherCompanion, popping in as one of the backlog drive co-ordinators, I think it's fair to call a "no consensus" result in an RS discussion a "questionable" source. The discussion ends up at "no consensus" precisely because the reliability is questionable, rather than a clearer expression of reliable or unreliable. I agree with you that tabloids are probably more reliable for reporting on soaps than they are for most other reporting, and tabloids is also where I'd expect to find critical responses (ie, reviews of individual episodes), so I don't think failing an article simply for having citations to the Mirror and Metro in it would be appropriate. But Dr. Swag Lord is right to point out that the volume of content sourced to these unreliable or marginally reliable sources is a problem. Personally, I think that also hints at a breadth/depth issue, per 3b: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. If the information can only be sourced to tabloids, we might be looking at insignificant/unnecessary detail.
 * By the way, as a careful and thoughtful reader yourself, you're welcome to join GA reviewing whenever you like. We'd love to have you! -- asilvering (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering Thank you very much for this clear and thorough explanation. I feel I have a much greater understanding now of Good Article guidance and how Dr.Swag Lord's decisions are clearly supported by it. If I can rephrase one of your points to check my understanding, applying 3b here is judging the article is perhaps going too far into details better suited to a series or fandom wiki rather than a general Wikipedia article? Thank you also for the invitation to join in with GA reviewing, this is certainly something I would be interested in when I have the time and a more confident grasp of Wikipedia policies. Best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, something that goes really exhaustively into details about individual characters is fandom wiki territory. We're more interested in what secondary sources have to say about a topic, like in academic articles, retrospective journalism, that sort of thing. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Lake Michigan Monster
Hello SW, Saw your review of my GA nomination and have addressed a lot of the issues. I agree with the assessment that some of the sources are questionable and have done my best to get that all fixed up. While some have been used in GA articles one nomajesty was too sketch to stay so I removed it. I added some other things to replace the old sources so hopefully that all helps. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Replied on the GA nom page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed the source Paleface Jack (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Paleface Jack, I have passed the article. Congrats! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Jus an update, I added the sources you found and removed some of the questionable ones.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Answers Research Journal
The article Answers Research Journal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Answers Research Journal for comments about the article, and Talk:Answers Research Journal/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ldm1954 -- Ldm1954 (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d - thanks again for your time on the GA review of Shanthi Kalathil - perhaps I will try nominating it for FA when I have the bandwidth to make it more comprehensive (and might reach out to seek your feedback then). Best, W9793 (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @W9793 Anytime! I’ll be more than happy to give more feedback. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Any comments on Ecoism
I came across it during NPR, somehow it ended up within the STEM section. I cannot decide what to do, it is probably Fringe philosophy but should I leave it, AfD it or...? Ldm1954 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ldm1954, never heard of it in my life but it has enough scholarly citations so I think it would survive AfD. You could add at the top if you think it’s warranted. You could also bring it to the attention of WP:FTN to see what they think. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)