Talk:Schiit Audio

Regarding article source reliability and amount of primary sources

@Onel5969: I just wanted to point out a few things regarding the sources used in this article. First is the primary sources thing: There are only three references to Schiit's website - this is because back in the early days of Schiit, when it had originally announced products like the Asgard and Valhalla, Schiit was pretty unknown in the audiophile space. So I had to rely on archived versions of Schitt's website detailing information on those two products, as there aren't any websites that covered those products until much later on, after Schiit released updated models of those products, along with new products like the Magni and Modi. So I am rebutting the "relies excessively on primary sources" claim, as the other 9 sources used aren't primary.

Second, like I mentioned in my manual reversion of the page issues additions, audiophile audio is pretty concentrated to very specific websites, and aren't typically covered by big name websites. So I'm using the sites that are readily available and commonly in Google / Bing searches when you look up Schiit or its products. So I'm also rebutting the source reliability claim.

This is why I removed the page issues. I'll try and find more robust sources, but please don't reinstate the issues when there aren't really any reasons to. Thanks. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 11:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but your rationalizations above are not valid reasons for removing the tags which accurately portray issues with the article's sourcing. Almost all of the sourcing is either primary or unreliable. Please do not remove the tags again as per WP:BRD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 How is the sourcing unreliable? Other audiophile focused articles use similar websites and don't have the tags. I think you're being overly critical. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 11:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Just for example, this is a blog, and this is an unreliable source. In addition, many of the refs, such as this, this, and this, while not coming directly from the company, are regurgitated Press Releases, and as such are primary sources. You can tell press releases because they'll have info not found in true news stories, like pricing, links to the company and/or product, etc. Sorry if you feel this is overcritical, but just because WP:OSE, doesn't mean that new articles have to follow the same pattern. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The hear.audio link isn't a press release - its actually custom writing, I made sure to verify. And ASR isn't a blog, its a forum, a relatively common forum used by tens of thousands of people, similar to Head-Fi. And darko.audio is a pretty reputable source in the audiophile community, they also have a decently sized YouTube channel with over 280K subscribers. And a lot of articles by the way, when quoting product releases, tend to link to or quote press releases, so I'd argue there is no issue with that. Also I take a massive issue with how you mention "linking to the company or product" or product pricing. Lots of articles do this as well and they aren't primary sources, so I'd argue your reasoning is invalid. The Verge is a super common example of websites that mention a product's pricing or link to the product or company.

Engadget is a pretty reputable source. That article shouldn't show the press release, however its an older article from when Endgadget used an older publishing platform. But that doesn't make the website any less valid.

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of your points. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 11:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, did not see your above post. blog=forum - both have no editorial oversight. And I didn't say the Hear piece was a press release, I said it was a regurgitated PR, which is pretty similar, but means that a magazine/newspaper writer simply took a press release and paraphrased it. Those never go to notability. Regarding Darko, sorry but I disagree, they have no editorial policy. But that's really irrelevant, once again, this is merely a regurgitated press release. And it's okay to disagree if you do not think that taking information from a company and then writing advertising copy for that company is somehow okay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)