Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Riverwind/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Riverwind[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. Reviewers noted a lack of real world content and reliable secondary sources, and questioned whether two non-free images are needed; one low resolution non-free image should be enough. Geometry guy 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article, and found it to be deficent one one very imporant regard: there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional character outside of the primary source material.

The article itself goes into great detail about these primary sources, quoting extensively from them. As a result, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT because it is a regurgitation of the primary sources.

Following a review of this article, I added the Notability template so that this issue would be addressed. It was removed by ReyBrujo on the grounds that "Notability asserted in the article itself"[1], an assertion that I believe is not in accordance with WP Guidelines WP:V and WP:RS, and I have brought this matter to his attention.

It appears that the requirement for reliable secondary sources was ignored in this article's Good Article assessment, and this issue should now be addressed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the manual of style, The term secondary information describes information external to the fictional universe, and is usually taken from secondary sources about the fictional world, or from primary and secondary sources about the author and the circumstances of creation. Annotated books are primary sources, yes, but with comments from the authors about the circumstances of creation, which fits the definition. Books are used to reference the plot, but when giving author's insight of the character, annotated books and supplements written in an out-of-universe perspective are given. I believe it is clear enough that reliable sources are used. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, and quite loosely speaking, this seems to be a WP:COAT issue (under the guise of concern about the review, the comments/concerns really only seek to address what constitutes an RS). This appears to essentially be a content dispute inappropriate for GAR (similar to this); the discussion is better had at WP:FICT, WP:V or the appropriate MoS subpage/Wikiproject. For what it’s worth, the MoS is a guideline and is subordinate to WP:V, which is policy. WP:V says “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. Use of “should” instead of, say, “must” leaves the policy open to considerations of common sense and context. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin has an issue with all the RPG articles and looks for any reason to cast doubt or disparity on them. This is request has not been brought in good faith and it certain part of his biased agenda against RPG articles in general. But do not take my word for it, observe his edit pattern since Sept 2007. Web Warlock (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin reads "should" in this case as "absolutely must, or it needs to be deleted with extreme prejudice". BOZ (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep comments relevant to the GA review/status. Gavin and/or his motivations is not the topic here. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. NOTPLOT asserts that "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." The article is very short on real-world context. Majoreditor (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to paucity of real-world context. Majoreditor (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delist Although I find the motives for the GAR nomination highly questionable, the article is here and deserves due process. There are serious breaches of at least three GA critera:
    • Criterion 2: All substantive content is sourced with primarily materials, which, in addition to being a WP:V/WP:RS violation, makes statements such as “Weis and Hickman continue diminishing the protagonism of Riverwind” appear to be OR.
    • Criterion 3: Article does not address or provide real world context or analysis – a serious breach of broadness.
    • Criterion 6. Fair-use statements in both images falsely assert that images are low resolution. Low resolution is defined as no more than 300 pixels horizontally or vertically (i.e. less than 0.1 megapixels); both images exceed this maximum and contain no explanation as to why the larger size is warranted. Further, use of two images is not supported by WP:FUC, which states “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.” Images are used “to show Riverwind, one of the main characters in the Dragonlance world” (although the tag on Riverwind_the_Plainsman_cover.jpg‎ states “to show Goldmoon” when the image is purportedly of Riverwind); no explanation as to why two non-free images are needed to achieve this end is provided. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Riverwind/1&oldid=1138522795"