Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Zhemao hoaxes/1

Zhemao hoaxes

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Zhemao_hoaxes/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

fails criteria 2.

only supported by four references (the fifth is used to support one sentence), which is already an issue.

the literary hub source appears to be based on the sixth tone source, and the engadget source appears to be based on the vice source. ltbdl (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ltbdl I'm confused. Criteria 2 is Verifiable with no original research. What part of the article is not verifiable? You appear to be making an argument about notability, which is something else. The place for that kind of discussion is WP:AFD. I would warn you that I do not believe this will fail an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * it's not a question of notability. pretty sure just having 4 refs is a problem for being a good article, or am i wrong? ltbdl (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there's no "number of sources" requirement. See the GA criteria and I recommend asking questions before opening a reassessment next time. czar  03:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * my apologies. i withdraw this reassessment. ltbdl (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (Original GA reviewer here) - I am busy with a cross-country move and don't particularly have time to participate in a process past this comment, but I don't understand the concern here. The article is supported by five references and there's no "number of sources" requirement past the three we expect for notability. Some of the references linking to other references isn't a disqualifying factor, it's basic journalistic ethics. The sources used describe an event, so naturally they'll cover the same ground. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)