Wikipedia:Peer review/Narwhal/archive4

Narwhal

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for a pre-FAC source review. The last 2 nominations were archived for sourcing problems so I need to know where the article's source-to-text integrity is at. I've fixed some issues but I first want to make sure before re-nominating. Pinging @FAC coordinators: @RoySmith, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Generalissima: -- who might be interested.

Thanks, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine XI, speaking plainly, you shouldn't "need to know where the article's source-to-text integrity is at". You should know yourself. You should review every single statement and double-check that it corresponds to the cited reference. This should not be anyone else's problem to fix, certainly not peer review, because source reviewing is already a thankless job. The responsibility is yours here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I did, but I don't want to be questioned about sourcing issues by reviewers in the next nomination. In the event that this spot check is successful, there won't be any problems with the 5th nom. Using this website, I generated random numbers, and the results were 3, 4, 12, 21, 24, 31, 43, 45, 55, 59, 67, 76, 77, 80, 85, 95, 96, 103, 110, and 113, for potential reviewers to check. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A peer review spot check doesn't clear a nomination from needing one at FAC. They are separate processes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? If the source review passes in PR, will it count as an automatic pass for when it reaches FAC? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]