Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mood Swings (Pop Smoke song)/archive1

Regarding Slant
(Unrelated sidenote; haven't looked at article either. Writing this on talk as it does not directly have to do with the article) Idk I just feel conversations like the above are not supposed to happen. Other users like you should not have to take time and step in and clarify stuff in so many pop culture noms... I don't think it should be this complicated. I feel like there is a need for a list of high-quality (not just generally reliable) pop culture/music/television websites/outlets, in a table format with evidence similar to that HĐ provided above. This way, FAC source reviewers could have higher confidence in the sources being used in articles as they have another resource they can consider when reviewing, making for less conflict in reviews, and the nominator (particularly a new one) has less of a job to do and knows what's considered high quality by multiple people and the reasons why, so they can use those sources first and not have to spend time switching/removing content during a review (if they wish to nominate something for FAC), making the process smoother. Heartfox (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the ping. Apologies if I sidetracked the conversation or distracted from the FAC in any way as that was not my intention. I was merely trying to add to HĐ's comments by hopefully adding another voice in agreement. I know that some WikiProjects have their own tables/discussions on what is and is not considered a reliable source, but I know from personal experience that is not well-regarded by FAC source reviewers (which I found rather disappointing as I find it to be a tad dismissive to WikiProjects, but that is a separate thing entirely). I do not think these conversations are necessarily bad for the FAC space as long as the nominator is willing to calmly/clearly explain why a source is high-quality and if the source reviewer takes the time to fully engage in the conversation and is open to really hearing the nominator's opinions. These kind of discussions can be beneficial in my opinion if done correctly (but I also have empathy/sympathy for both the reviewer and the nominator as I can see how/why these discussions being frustrating or contentious). That is just my opinion though. Maybe there could be a larger discussion on what sources are considered high-quality for a FAC on the FAC talk page. I just hope this would be in a way so editors who are experienced in these pop culture topics would feel like their opinions are heard and not looked down upon. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * you don't have to be so apologetic! Your comment was specifically about the source in the article—I wrote here because this is not directly relevant to the review :) My concern is that I've seen inconsistencies in FAC where some source reviewers pass one thing while others flag it. I feel like this is a problem that unfortunately heightens tensions in reviews, but could be easily solved with the creation of a "high quality" sources table (specifically for pop culture sources, as they seem to be highlighted the most) as a resource that a source reviewer could consult. It may lesson the burden on other people needing to comment and provide evidence for sources' quality, as such evidence would be given in a permanent place. For example, taking WP:RSMUSIC and providing more context by labeling some as "high quality" using evidence like HĐ provided. Idk I just think it might be helpful; only a suggestion. Heartfox (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Tensions are definitely high regarding source reviews lately. It is helpful to try and brainstorm different ways to hopefully alleviate that. I am uncertain that doing anything to specific WikiProjects would the best move here. For instance, I have seen WP:RSMUSIC completely dismissed in a FAC source review so it may instead be more beneficial to create something entirely separate? I'm not really sure how that would look though. Whatever happens though I just hope it is done through a true discussion where everyone's voices can be heard and things a proper/respectful response. I have just seen too many instances where things go left and ended in a less ideal space. Hopefully, all of this focus on source reviews in the FAC space will lead to something constructive. Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I understand your concerns, and have also thought of sort of a FAC source guideline specifically for FA. It was kind of disheartening to see WP:RSMUSIC being dismissed at FAC source reviews (including the most recent one where I chimed in). While I understand that popular culture-related articles may be subject to harsher source reviews given the abundance of online platforms out there, I wonder if another guideline would be helpful, if other editors already dismissed the qualification of a WikiProjct in the first place. HĐ (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)