Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/GA1

Originally located at Talk:Santorum_(sexual_neologism)#GA_Failed

GA Failed

Firstly, the background section is unsourced and links to an article which has no sources and is a BLP liability. Thus there is a BLP in this article. Secondly, a large chunk of the article is sourced to things like "The Onion" and also "Aleternative Weekly" newspapers, which by looking at the articles on the newspapers in question, are satirical newspapers and do not qualify as RS. Given the legal issuses that this article faces, this not adeqaute. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this review. First off, it gives vague problems and no solutions. You do not identify how this article violates the BLP with any specific examples. Simply linking to another article which violates BLP is not a failing reason. Additionally, it references not a single hard and fast quick-fail criteria. There is no way that at least some of the problems here could not be fixed in a week. Last, the idea that published works such as The Stranger cannot be used as reliable sources for appropriate types of content is folly. They have editorial review and fact checking, so they pass the test of "questionable sources". If you would consider perhaps taking some more time with the review and explaining things in detail according to each of the criteria, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I will be requesting a reassessment of this review. Thank you VanTucky ^Talk 04:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will be back properly in a few hours, but that background section had no references and the material covered is highly controversial, just in that short section. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has been fixed. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're not understanding the quick-fail criteria Blnguyen. Only a complete lack of sourcing is a quick-fail reason. Sometimes many large and unsourced sections are considered a violation, but this is not one of those cases. One or two sections not having sources is not unfixable in a week's time. VanTucky ^Talk 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object based on the same reasons that VanTucky objects - the review doesn't go into enough detail on what can be done to improve the article, and instead hides behind the weak shield of "BLP concerns." Please take more time on this review. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While The Onion is a parody newspaper, The Stranger, like many other so-called alternative weeklies (e.g., The Village Voice) actually produces high-quality journalism. I've never heard it suggested that these are not reliable sources. --lquilter 05:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this article may never receive "good article" status, because it is a POV piece that advocates a neologism. An article on the controversy between Savage and Santorum could become a good article (and we already have an article that approaches the topic from that direction), but this article is couched in the idea of "santorum" being an actual word. It thus runs afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues, not to mention the BLP issues already mentioned. Strangely enough, this is also why the article has been nominated for AfD status multiple times, with opinions being split on whether to delete the topic or not. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't advocate for anything. It never once makes a judgement about the ethics of the term or Rick Santorum without attributing that to a reliable source. Simply dealing with an issue is not advocacy. VanTucky ^Talk 20:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It advocates for the progression of the term beyond its current status as a neologism. As I mentioned, if the article's topic were the conflict between Savage and Santorum, then it could achieve a NPOV while mentioning the term in that context. Instead, the article as written primarily catalogs instances of the term appearing in media in an effort to try to promote it beyond its current level of usage (and many of the references provided are also attempting to advocate the expansion of the term's usage). By situating the topic in an article about the term rather than about the conflict, you create the illusion of NPOV despite almost all of the article advocating the use of the term at the expense of a living person. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take this to GAR and get a reassessment if you feel. For the record, GAC depends to a large part on the opinoin of the assessor, particularly so if the article/topic has some idosyncrasies about it. From my behaviour on-wiki, I have had a strong tendency to use textbooks, journal articles, and only highly serious places like BBC and broadsheets like NYT, Sydney Morning Herald and so forth. I have a strong aversion to using any tabloid papers whatsoever, and try to find broadsheet substitutes for any info I find in a tabloid. eg, I regard the Times of India and Rediff to not be a RS: eg, see User:Blnguyen/Times of India. I have also at times find myself decrying some sources as non-RS on FAs. As a result, perhaps my attitude towards an "offbeat newspaper" may have overpowered things and in any case, there are a lot of people having an opinion on this so GAR seems appropriate anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of going through GAR, I think we'd be just as well off if I renominated it; perhaps we'd get some additional feedback/new opinions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been renominated. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the review request would have been better categorized under "Media". --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 05:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]