Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/GA2
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Fred Chess in topic Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
edit- See also WP:GAR, from 10:46, 8 March 2007
This article currently contains several self-published sources. As I understand WP:RS these are inappropriate for use on Wikipedia. Specifically, any reference back to http://www.venganza.org/ (3 of them in total) would only be appropriate if the article was about Bobby Henderson. Since the article is about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (presumably the FSM did not write the text at venganza.org) and not Bobby Henderson I think these references are invalid. They may belong on the Bobby Henderson article, but not this one. Further, there is a reference to blogger.com that is clearly not a RS. Others are questionable as well.MikeURL 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you reread WP:RS and hopefully this time you will see that according to the rules these are OK in certain circumstances. Sophia 13:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion and I have reread WP:RS. There is nothing there to suggest that the self-published website venganza.org is a reliable source for the article Flying Spaghetti Monster. Venganza.org would probably would be fine for the Bobby Henderson article.MikeURL 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- You obviously missed this bit [1]. Sophia 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did read it and my comment above specifically addresses it. I don't think the part you linked to applies because the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't write the text at venganza.MikeURL 01:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- You obviously missed this bit [1]. Sophia 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion and I have reread WP:RS. There is nothing there to suggest that the self-published website venganza.org is a reliable source for the article Flying Spaghetti Monster. Venganza.org would probably would be fine for the Bobby Henderson article.MikeURL 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep , it is my view that alleged violation of WP:RS does not affect the GA status in this case. I think it should be discussed on the article talk page whether it really is a violation of RS, and if it is, then I suggest the links should be removed. / Fred-Chess 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)removed Fred-Chess 09:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)- fail too listy.Rlevse 03:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delist - Shudda talk 05:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- question Do the last three voters oppose this article based on it being too listy or because of WP:RS, or is there any other reason? Thanks for helping us improve the article. / Fred-Chess 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)