Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2017

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC) [1].

Kalidas (film)

edit
Notified: Ssven2

I am nominating this featured article for review because even though it passed FAC, two of the books used extensively in the article (those by G. Dhananjayan) were later revealed to be mirror publications (although the Kalidas chapter in them did not copy from us). Still I chose to play safe by removing the two books, resulting in the article being largely reworked, and now it will need to go through a FAR to check whether it is still FA worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have been through the last version with the tainted sources, and it seems that all the information that was being referenced using the books has either been reworked or has been furnished with newer and more reliable sources. I have been through every word of the Madras Musings source that has been (majorly) used to replace the old sources, and can say with complete assurance that it substantiates every piece of information that it needs to. Will go through the entire article as a whole again, but this is impressive work so far. It's not an easy job to look up sources for an Indian multi-lingual lost film, but Kailash here does remarkably well and I commend him for that. NumerounovedantTalk 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close without FARC -- I've been going though the sourcing since the last one hour. Given the film's period and availability, i find this article remarkable even now. Despite the removal of Dhananjayan's books, the article still is comprehensive and focused. I reiterate that my decision is purely unbiased and is to the best of my knowledge. I add that i don't have any issues with the nominators which could influence me to take this decision. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Could you please notify the relevant WikiProjects about this review? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
Checked a few sources
  • Ref6 supports all the facts given.
  • Ref14 too suppurts the facts.
  • [2] supports Randor Guy's statement and the reception info for the film.
Randomly checking the book sources also bring the same results. Though the article appears short, considering the time of the film and that its lost the info provided is sufficient. The reason for initiating this FAR was the sourcing issue and I'm confident now that it has been sufficiently resolved. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC) [3].

Briarcliff Manor, New York

edit
Notified: M

The main editor has an admitted COI, self-mitigated by "Citing yourself", placing the burden of proof on the reviewer. Two issues here; the afore mentioned COI, which I am uncomfortable with prima facie.

Second, many of the sources presented here do not seem to pass the RS test; Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Caltone Color Graphics Inc, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch, American FactFinder, etc. Ceoil (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not meet the requisite attempt to resolve this on the article talk page. Your first paragraph lacks clear wording and explanations and thus I can't decode it. As for sources, see the article talk. This discussion should happen there per WP:FAR, until disputes completely fail to be resolved. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you two weeks in a charitable view (current FAC), two months in a less charitable view (last FAC), on a remarkably similar, Briarcliff related, topic. I have been stonewalled especially in the last two weeks, with an utter lack of concern for sources on your behalf, which you have defend via mis-characterisation and beligerance. That tells me three things:

  • (1) You don't have a leg to stand here on substance
  • (2) Your earlier nominations need further examination
  • (3) Your attitude is not helpful to the FAC process Ceoil (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a significant amount of patience for you as well, which eventually drained out. I feel like many of your recent complaints are griefing, and I don't understand how you think multiple reviewers supporting an FA could possibly warrant a significant look or overhaul. And your attitudes haven't been helpful to these processes either. Once you or others seriously present problems with my sources, I can address specific questions, complaints, or issues. But generally listing a number of sources and saying "Why should I trust this?" doesn't help. Please present specific issues. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please answear the basic questions rather than deflect via personalised tangents. This is about criteria and standards. My specific issues are clear enough, in almost bullet format. Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Caltone Color Graphics Inc, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch, American FactFinder. Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll state again, I can address specific questions, complaints, or issues. But generally listing a number of sources and saying "Why should I trust this?" doesn't help. Please present specific issues. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, whatever. As per your current FAC.

What makes these reliable sources

  • Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee
  • Village of Briarcliff Manor
  • Caltone Color Graphics Inc
  • Village of Briarcliff Manor
  • Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch
  • American FactFinder.
I hope this third time (on this page) is clear enough for your particular brain. Now please, address. Ceoil (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you don't understand, or want to ignore even the basics of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Also you are citing your own lack of diligence in the past[4][5] in an article that barely scraped through, as reason why we should all just forget Verification now. That's concentric; I don't believe for a second that you are not behind many of these sources. Ceoil (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional point; the Briarcliff articles are puffed up with triviality that no one but a local paper writer could give a damn about; opening times, parking rights, civil servant numbers on a Wednesday, anti-virus update schedules, etc...nonsense that has been fought tooth and nail over here. Many vastly better local history articles are out there; and typically the weakest editors always cry 'but that other rubbish page got through, so why cant I'. This is about both that "because", and because you cant go off and write factoids in a 12 page local rag and then use it for an FAC, all shucks. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring all of your baseless personal attacks that largely make no sense, you should know that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Within the context that I use any source, I find the sources to be appropriate. That is why, for a third time, DON'T just bullet which sources you aren't sure you can trust. You have to be smart about your issues with this. Read about the first basic things about FactFinder and you'd feel silly putting it up there. Read which sources I use to support which information and you'll better understand. Read the prior FACs, where people question some of those sources and I already gave them sufficient answers. I'm not wasting time doing all that explaining over again, especially if you don't give me serious questions about an individual source and why it should or shouldn't be used over another source in that particular context. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the onus is on you. But its out of our hands now. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed. If you have actual concerns to be serious with this FA Review, you'd pose specific relevant questions here. I'm under no obligation, and it would be far more difficult to generally answer when you could just give specific inquiries, if you have any. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a trainwreck of personal interactions gone wrong here that I do not understand, but I don't think there is any evidence at all that Ɱ wrote the cited sources. Ɱ has a passionate interest in local history, clearly, as most of us are passionate on something or other, and it's true passion sometimes misguides article writers, but it's also clear Ɱ's interest in these types of articles is genuine, not a COI. Maybe both parties should consider giving a break to the remarkably rapid-fire edits and replies of today, and give it some breathing space before returning to the topic.--Pharos (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I am a member of Wikimedia New York City. WMNYC is not an organization with any authority, but as a community group, sometimes the organization does try to mediate tense situations. I have messaged both Ceoil and Ɱ. Both users agreed to a voluntary interaction ban, which means that each of these two users should halt their conversation. I will talk to both users and help resolve the situation. If for whatever reason anyone wishes to have another mediator, then I can help find one at WMNYC or elsewhere on wiki.
This discussion has included criticism of the article, which is good, and personal questioning about conflict of interest, which is also good. As a mediator I cannot sort all of these things, but I can say that the Briarcliff Library among others in Westchester county has hosted regional Wikimedia events. COI is a complicated issue, but in the traditional understanding of the concept as a financial relationship, there is no COI in this case. No organization in the area pays Ɱ or anyone else to do wiki, nor is any organization publishing content from Ɱ or anyone else for citing to Wikipedia.
I think that Ceoil is justified in questioning whether sources are reliable, as this is part of the review process. Talking through the questioned sources would be helpful. For example, one of the cited sources is a book published by "Caltone Color Graphics Inc", which by its name seems like a vanity publisher. Acknowledging anything unorthodox about the listed sources would be a good way to invite other reviewers to advance the conversation. ::In the FAR process it is customary to try to address all issues which anyone raises. Even through the tension I still would like to see every concern addressed. In the end I would like for for other reviewers to see Ceoil's questions matched with answers that make sense and leave other disagreements aside. If anyone wants to talk to me about either posting questions or answers in a friendly way, then post to my talk page or email me, but otherwise please M and Ceoil pause on communicating directly to each other. Thanks. M, can you take the next step and talk through sources which you recognize as lower quality? Perhaps post this on the article's talk page outside the context of this review, and for anyone who might check the talk page at any time in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, am I missing something here? Did the nominator create this FAR on the 8th, then add on the FARC section themselves the following day? That's, uh... not how this works. Pinging @FAR coordinators: . --PresN 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: I've removed the header and your delist declaration for now - we usually give much more than a day before moving to declarations. For this first stage let's focus on actionable comments relative to the FA criteria, on all sides. Note in particular that reliability of sourcing is a valid thing to be evaluated, but personal attitudes are not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Nikki. I have given a commitment to disengage, which is really for the best (thank you Blue Rasberry for stepping in, and I agree with, or accept, everything you said above); this all got personalised real fast, on both sides, and will go with whatever is decided here for this article, provided there is diligence, and adequate response. Ceoil (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just letting people know I have been away, and have been mostly away from computers, which will likely continue to be until the 24th. I'll be able to give a complete response then. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bluerasberry's thoughts, please see Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York#Sources for answers about the contested sources. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/May_2017&oldid=783623860"