User talk:Seabuckthorn/Archives/2016/09

The Signpost: 06 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Your standard for GA seems at times too low
Is it because The Tunnel article is much better than most, and only television, that it qualifies so quickly for GA—despite a whole section that lacks sources, sentences in the lede that can be seen as not being sourced in the main body, etc? GA should mean no tag-able problems. That is not the case there. A deeper look was needed—a careful check of all text against sources, for one. There is absolutely no strong or objective basis to carry into an article, that the appearance of proper sourcing truly constitutes compliance with WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, etc. Perhaps it is my experience in the way science articles are sourced, but my experiences with humanities, arts, etc. articles suggests no greater reliability and discipline against OR and plagiarism in entertainment and arts articles than in the sciences (where non-common knowledge material is often mis- or un-sourced). Le Prof 73.211.138.148 (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)