Talk:Gibraltar at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games/GA2
GA Reassessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
All citations presently in this article are primary and are not independent of the event. That means it fails criteria 2b and 2c. --Izno (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- 2b and 2c do not demand that sources not be secondary and neither do they request independent sources. That is more WP:N province. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- One demands that the article adhere to WP:NOR and the other WP:RS (directly) and WP:V (indirectly via item 2 or through the link in RS). I think you would be hard-pressed to suggest that one of the three does not say that this article is way on the wrong side of what we expect of good articles given its excessive reliance on primary sources. WP:NPOV is also relevant, so that's criterion #4 also. I could also DQ it due to tagging it with {{primary sources}}, which would trigger the quick fail criterion #3. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The reference to "independence" is at best tangential in either V or RS, and NOR explicitly disclaims that independence is a requirement. I have no particular opinion on this article, I was mostly commenting because a lot of people seem to take NOR as meaning "primary sources bad" and this seemed to be yet another instance of that attitude in action. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Primary sources are bad because they have an apparent conflict of interest. That doesn't seem particularly tangential to me. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- There is a difference between not being independent or primary and having a conflict of interest. See Party and person for example. This is a common misconception and part of the reason why I am commenting here is to discourage people from repeating it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Primary sources are bad because they have an apparent conflict of interest. That doesn't seem particularly tangential to me. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- The reference to "independence" is at best tangential in either V or RS, and NOR explicitly disclaims that independence is a requirement. I have no particular opinion on this article, I was mostly commenting because a lot of people seem to take NOR as meaning "primary sources bad" and this seemed to be yet another instance of that attitude in action. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- One demands that the article adhere to WP:NOR and the other WP:RS (directly) and WP:V (indirectly via item 2 or through the link in RS). I think you would be hard-pressed to suggest that one of the three does not say that this article is way on the wrong side of what we expect of good articles given its excessive reliance on primary sources. WP:NPOV is also relevant, so that's criterion #4 also. I could also DQ it due to tagging it with {{primary sources}}, which would trigger the quick fail criterion #3. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.