Talk:Passengers of the Titanic/GA2: Difference between revisions

< Talk:Passengers of the Titanic Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:27, 15 November 2018 editDennis Bratland (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users61,245 edits notice on why this is GAR is happening← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:37, 15 November 2018 edit undoParsecboy (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators184,940 edits collapse trollingNext edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:
	It's not really worth going through and looking at the prose until the serious sourcing issues are resolved (if they can be - the topic is probably too arcane for actual reliable sources to cover the details in such depth, and is probably indicative that the article ought to be deleted outright, but that's a discussion for another day). ] (]) 13:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)		It's not really worth going through and looking at the prose until the serious sourcing issues are resolved (if they can be - the topic is probably too arcane for actual reliable sources to cover the details in such depth, and is probably indicative that the article ought to be deleted outright, but that's a discussion for another day). ] (]) 13:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

			{{collapse top\|title=Off-topic trolling}}
	*It might be good for everyone to know that the Administrator {{u\|Parsecboy}} is locked in a protracted, longwinded (my fault, sorry) debate over whether ] forbids listing any names of non-notable casualties. It's over at ]. Yesterday this GA was cited as one of several FAs, FLs and GAs that include the names of people who didn't play a prominent role the event, other than as as bystanders, victims, or casualties, as examples of the global consensus is that the NOTMEMORIAL policy doesn't limit content this way, much like ] are about article topic notability, not the limiting content within notable topics.<P>I'm more than happy to see the community scrutinize ] and help reaffirm or clarify the global consensus (if any) about how the NOTMEMORIAL as written is applied. I don't understand why Parsecboy isn't arguing that this article should be delisted for violating the NOTMEMORIAL policy -- he's very emphatic that the policy forbids listing the names of seven hapless sailors killed in a Navy collision; it would seem obvious that 1300+ hapless passengers whose names are not blue linked would also violate policy. It isn't even worth looking at the sourcing issues above if there are over a thousand obvious policy violations right up front.<P>Please do review this article, but be aware of the issues swirling around it and the possible ulterior motives that may be afoot. --] (]) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)		*It might be good for everyone to know that the Administrator {{u\|Parsecboy}} is locked in a protracted, longwinded (my fault, sorry) debate over whether ] forbids listing any names of non-notable casualties. It's over at ]. Yesterday this GA was cited as one of several FAs, FLs and GAs that include the names of people who didn't play a prominent role the event, other than as as bystanders, victims, or casualties, as examples of the global consensus is that the NOTMEMORIAL policy doesn't limit content this way, much like ] are about article topic notability, not the limiting content within notable topics.<P>I'm more than happy to see the community scrutinize ] and help reaffirm or clarify the global consensus (if any) about how the NOTMEMORIAL as written is applied. I don't understand why Parsecboy isn't arguing that this article should be delisted for violating the NOTMEMORIAL policy -- he's very emphatic that the policy forbids listing the names of seven hapless sailors killed in a Navy collision; it would seem obvious that 1300+ hapless passengers whose names are not blue linked would also violate policy. It isn't even worth looking at the sourcing issues above if there are over a thousand obvious policy violations right up front.<P>Please do review this article, but be aware of the issues swirling around it and the possible ulterior motives that may be afoot. --] (]) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}

Revision as of 17:37, 15 November 2018

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article has serious problems that need to be addressed if the GA rating is to be kept.

First and foremost, the article is quarried extensively from encyclopedia-titanica.org. This is a user-generated site and is not a reliable source. It needs to be expunged and replaced with quality sources.
Ditto for websites like webtitanic.net (which is dead), taxguru.org, this page, this page, etc. This should not be construed as a complete list of problematic sources. There are many more.
Significant copyright problems with the images - being taken before 1923 is not the same as being published before 1923. There are no dates of publication or sources for almost all of the photos in the article, only vague assertions that they were published in contemporary newspapers. We need sources and dates, or the images need to be removed.

It's not really worth going through and looking at the prose until the serious sourcing issues are resolved (if they can be - the topic is probably too arcane for actual reliable sources to cover the details in such depth, and is probably indicative that the article ought to be deleted outright, but that's a discussion for another day). Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic trolling
It might be good for everyone to know that the Administrator Parsecboy is locked in a protracted, longwinded (my fault, sorry) debate over whether WP:NOTMEMORIAL forbids listing any names of non-notable casualties. It's over at Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision#WP:NOTMEMORIAL edit. Yesterday this GA was cited as one of several FAs, FLs and GAs that include the names of people who didn't play a prominent role the event, other than as as bystanders, victims, or casualties, as examples of the global consensus is that the NOTMEMORIAL policy doesn't limit content this way, much like notability requirements are about article topic notability, not the limiting content within notable topics. I'm more than happy to see the community scrutinize Passengers of the RMS Titanic and help reaffirm or clarify the global consensus (if any) about how the NOTMEMORIAL as written is applied. I don't understand why Parsecboy isn't arguing that this article should be delisted for violating the NOTMEMORIAL policy -- he's very emphatic that the policy forbids listing the names of seven hapless sailors killed in a Navy collision; it would seem obvious that 1300+ hapless passengers whose names are not blue linked would also violate policy. It isn't even worth looking at the sourcing issues above if there are over a thousand obvious policy violations right up front. Please do review this article, but be aware of the issues swirling around it and the possible ulterior motives that may be afoot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic trolling

It might be good for everyone to know that the Administrator Parsecboy is locked in a protracted, longwinded (my fault, sorry) debate over whether WP:NOTMEMORIAL forbids listing any names of non-notable casualties. It's over at Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision#WP:NOTMEMORIAL edit. Yesterday this GA was cited as one of several FAs, FLs and GAs that include the names of people who didn't play a prominent role the event, other than as as bystanders, victims, or casualties, as examples of the global consensus is that the NOTMEMORIAL policy doesn't limit content this way, much like notability requirements are about article topic notability, not the limiting content within notable topics.
I'm more than happy to see the community scrutinize Passengers of the RMS Titanic and help reaffirm or clarify the global consensus (if any) about how the NOTMEMORIAL as written is applied. I don't understand why Parsecboy isn't arguing that this article should be delisted for violating the NOTMEMORIAL policy -- he's very emphatic that the policy forbids listing the names of seven hapless sailors killed in a Navy collision; it would seem obvious that 1300+ hapless passengers whose names are not blue linked would also violate policy. It isn't even worth looking at the sourcing issues above if there are over a thousand obvious policy violations right up front.
Please do review this article, but be aware of the issues swirling around it and the possible ulterior motives that may be afoot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)