| Revision as of 20:30, 15 November 2018 editParsecboy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators184,940 edits →GA Reassessment: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:43, 15 November 2018 edit undoDennis Bratland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,245 edits nope. If you want to complain at ANI, go right ahead. It probably doesn't matter. collapsing it like that just hangs a lampshade on it and ensures even more editors are aware of your history with this prior to this GARNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| 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) | ||
| **Parsecboy doesn't wish my comments to be seen here, calling it "trolling" and "off topic". An editor's prior involvement when decision is being discussed is of course relevant. There is at least the appearance of ]y ulterior motives. Anybody discussing this article with Parsecboy has a need to be aware that he has other, tangential goals that may be served by getting this article delisted. I welcome a broader discussion and reevaluation of this article, but everyone's cards need to be on the table. At AfDs, it's routine to add notes to !votes by the article creator or an editor with a known COI.<P>If a neutral, uninvolved editor dislikes how I worded it, please replace my note with a neutrally-worded notice letting everyone know what's up. --] (]) 20:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *''Titanic Names: A Complete List of the Passengers and Crew'' {{OCLC|767566700}} (2011) should be helpful if someone can get hold of it. It's in some Portland, Oregon area public libraries. Other dependable lists online exist such as , (paywall) via the UK National Archives, and so on. There's even a (2007) about the list being online. ] (]) 18:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC) | *''Titanic Names: A Complete List of the Passengers and Crew'' {{OCLC|767566700}} (2011) should be helpful if someone can get hold of it. It's in some Portland, Oregon area public libraries. Other dependable lists online exist such as , (paywall) via the UK National Archives, and so on. There's even a (2007) about the list being online. ] (]) 18:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC) | ||
| **The book was published by a Rocklin Press, which appears to be defunct, since - not likely to indicate that Rocklin Press was anything but a vanity press that is no longer in business. Ancestry.com ] either. ] (]) 18:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC) | **The book was published by a Rocklin Press, which appears to be defunct, since - not likely to indicate that Rocklin Press was anything but a vanity press that is no longer in business. Ancestry.com ] either. ] (]) 18:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:43, 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.
- I've gone through and added citation tags for material that has no source altogether.
- 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)
- 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)
- Parsecboy doesn't wish my comments to be seen here, calling it "trolling" and "off topic". An editor's prior involvement when decision is being discussed is of course relevant. There is at least the appearance of WP:POINTy ulterior motives. Anybody discussing this article with Parsecboy has a need to be aware that he has other, tangential goals that may be served by getting this article delisted. I welcome a broader discussion and reevaluation of this article, but everyone's cards need to be on the table. At AfDs, it's routine to add notes to !votes by the article creator or an editor with a known COI.
If a neutral, uninvolved editor dislikes how I worded it, please replace my note with a neutrally-worded notice letting everyone know what's up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Parsecboy doesn't wish my comments to be seen here, calling it "trolling" and "off topic". An editor's prior involvement when decision is being discussed is of course relevant. There is at least the appearance of WP:POINTy ulterior motives. Anybody discussing this article with Parsecboy has a need to be aware that he has other, tangential goals that may be served by getting this article delisted. I welcome a broader discussion and reevaluation of this article, but everyone's cards need to be on the table. At AfDs, it's routine to add notes to !votes by the article creator or an editor with a known COI.
- Titanic Names: A Complete List of the Passengers and Crew OCLC 767566700 (2011) should be helpful if someone can get hold of it. It's in some Portland, Oregon area public libraries. Other dependable lists online exist such as Library of Virginia, ancestry.com (paywall) via the UK National Archives, and so on. There's even a Reuters story (2007) about the list being online. Bri.public (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- The book was published by a Rocklin Press, which appears to be defunct, since their website is dead - not likely to indicate that Rocklin Press was anything but a vanity press that is no longer in business. Ancestry.com is not an RS either. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why do we even have a list like that? How about a list of passengers drowned on board RMS Empress of Ireland? Crook1 (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- A good question indeed, and I don't disagree with you, but this isn't really the place for it. This article may well end up at WP:AFD (and you're free to take it there if you choose). Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)