Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Clannad (video game)/1

Clannad (video game)

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited paragraphs throughout the article; most of these do not fall under WP:PLOTCITE. Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't see any issue with it, to be frank, the plot summary is clearly citing the work itself even if it doesn't have inline citations. All I see that might be an issue is a sentence or two that isn't cited, and can be removed in less than a minute. Delisting things the moment that some random person adds original research sets a very bad precedent. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I agree that most of the uncited text falls under PLOTCITE. I marked other places that need citations with a "citation needed" tag. This include two entire paragraphs. Would you be willing to fill in the missing citations? Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't the music listings also simply cite the work itself? charcoal feather (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to use one of the existing citations to source the marked claims in Gameplay, though removing some things that weren't mentioned in the source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I think you misunderstand the purpose of GAR. If someone has added in a minor amount of WP:OR or uncited content, you remove the darn stuff if you can't find anything on the first two pages from a Google search. Again, not sure why removing poorly sourced or uncited content is such a terribly difficult thing to do. Barnt Toust 23:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a sentence of inference and an entire paragraph about some themes that was unsourced. Isn't that dandy? Barnt Toust 00:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: The point of GAR is to review the article in comparison to the good article criteria. If others wish to address the concerns, then I encourage them to do so. It is a lot of work and time for one editor to maintain all 40,648 good articles to ensure that uncited information in the article is not OR. This article had entire paragraphs of uncited information: if I am checking for OR, I check much more than Google to ensure information is correct (such as newspaper databases in WP:LIBRARY or sources listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources) for each sentence of information. I am glad subject-matter experts can complete this process more quickly than I can. I encourage those who can quickly complete this task to review all good articles to ensure uncited information is either cited or removed. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, it is not by any means difficult to look at an article, see where there is no citation or a {{Citation needed}} tag, and remove the offending content. Google test for info using keywords found the content in those uncited paragraphs, and if the bare minimum is done for due diligence, then the unsourced stuff goes bye-bye. Trying to look for sources to support existing unsourced content is the rough equivalent of Writing Wikipedia articles backward, and nobody should be doing that. Barnt Toust 00:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
now, if someone looks at a bunch of content about, say, music in a game and it's all unsourced, it's better to remove the stuff and someone can do proper research about the music. Barnt Toust 00:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: In the past, I have been pinged, similar to how I have been pinged above, for removing unsourced information from a good article without looking for sources. I am not willing to be wiki-yelled at for removing information from a good article without effectively looking for sources first. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Hey, removing unsourced content is what is objectively in the right, and getting wiki-yelled at needs to be met with a harsh reprimand of "if you care so much, wiki-yeller, then you may look for sources yourself. the content is in the revision before I removed it, and if it can be cited, it may be restored". There's nothing better than being objectively right about policy. Barnt Toust 00:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: WP:being right isn't enough. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, so sadly as it is, such as it is. Editors tend to have attachment issues to problematic content. If only Jimbo Wales would decree all uncited content to be removed... Barnt Toust 01:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the unsourced content has been removed now. Barnt Toust 00:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citation concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.