Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/CMLL World Lightweight Championship/archive1

From Siuenti's comments

First removal

• Well you would be the defense against the error, if you think that google translate translated something wrong from Spanish or Japanese you can bring it up and it can be addressed. Of course in the approach, it would be in line with the spirit of Wikipedia to assume it was an honest mistake instead of out of malice or incompetence. And if someone had malicious intentions I suppose they could insert false information anywhere for anything and claim they have a printed source - which is part of the reason why Wikipedia itself is not considered a Reliable Source but should be based on it. I would recommend you read the AGF article all the way through, it explains how to deal with anywhere where you suspect "bad faith" etc. in case you ever come across a case like that.  MPJ-DK  20:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• How can I know if the translation is wrong if I can't see the original Japanese? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well that is easy enough, you could just look yourself at the source you asked me to quote above - it's not hidden nor does it require passwords or payment to see them in the original Japanese version, the link is right there. So that's easy enough to check, you just asked me to quote it instead. Normally when someone does the source review they actually read the sources provided.  MPJ-DK  21:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• How can I know if the translation is wrong if I can't see the original Japanese? Spanish? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Same answer as above, because there is a link to anything web based.  MPJ-DK  21:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I guess you wouldn't agree that " Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up." Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I do not agree that we should exclude printed sources, and neither does the Wikipedia policies and principles. You are more than welcome to ping an FAC coordinator if you do not want to take my word for it, or indeed the principle of WP:AGF that I quoted, I will not take any offense to this, since it's clearly your first time doing an FAC source review and I want to be sure you're as informed as possible for the task.  MPJ-DK  21:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Does arguing that "readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up" imply that printed sources should be excluded? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well it implies that a printed source must be available to the reader - which is not only impractical but also impossible unless we all have access to some interdimentional library that contains every piece of printed work ever created. If a reader does not have the printed work they cannot verify it, pure physics - cannot read a book if you don't have it. Now any reader who has access to the printed material can certainly verify it, but a reader who does not have a book cannot verify if it's made up or not. How is that not an arguent to exclude anything printed??  MPJ-DK  21:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• You don't think that "readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up" would make a suitable core principle then? Like this one? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oh great, thank you for pointing out exactly what i am talking about - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources, which also mentions Wikipedia:Offline sources. And please do explain how you expect to be able to verify something that's in a book you do not have? And it does not matter what I think nor do I set guidelines or anything else. You cannot find any policy or principle on wikipedia stating that a source has to be available to all readers all over the world. I invite you once again to perhaps ping an FAC coordinator to get confirmation of this approach if you do not believe me when I say that this is something that's been done for thousands of printed sources in hundreds of FACs.  MPJ-DK  21:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Can Wikipedia not perhaps find one editor to whom these sources are available and then ask that editor to quote the Spanish? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Don't know, I've never done it and have not seen that done in FACs. I notice that your focus is on Spanish language sources?? Are you saying that you're cool with the English language sources that are printed? what if someone to whom English is not their native language misreads an English source puts in a mistaken "fact"?  MPJ-DK  22:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• If you want to discuss the place of printed sources in FACs may I suggest that we go to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates since it is a topic much bigger than you or me? This page here is for the actual article review, not discussion of Wikipedia principes.  MPJ-DK  22:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well I was hoping to review the actual sources of the actual article but it seems they are not available for review under any circumstances. My interpretation is that this violates WP:V, WP:Commonsense and WP:Beans but I'm sure Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates will set me straight if you open a discussion there. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Started discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#printed sources and source verification, although I am not sure how the beans essay applies nor WP:COMMONSENSE which says "Ignore rules if they do not make sense"?  MPJ-DK  23:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Second removal

• So yeah, you have all kinds of articles with tons of Spanish sources counting towards WP:N presumably, but you don't feel like investing in a scanner, or camera, or popping down to the library so we can check the substantiality of their coverage. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• So another implication that I am engaged in some sort of underhanded activity here?  MPJ-DK  21:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'd really kinda like to check the substantiallity of the coverage, you don't feel like helping me out in any way? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Have you given me a reason to actually do that? Implying that I'm lying, falsifying sources, cannot translate Spanish etc. is not really putting me in a cooporative moode ya know?  MPJ-DK  22:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• You want this thing to become a featured article, if it appears to pass WP:N I won't oppose it on that ground. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• And back to the topic at hand (Vol 2), of the multitude of online sources provided for you to review have you found any that disagree with the content of this article?  MPJ-DK  22:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about a source

MPJ-DK, you replied just after the nomination was closed that you had sent me the wrong cover by mistake. I had asked for the 3 January 2006 cover. The one you sent had a headline on it that seemed to be a retrospective of the year 2004, so it was probably published on December 2004 or January 2005, and indeed you've used that headline elsewhere in a citation dated January 2005. See my question and your response.

How did that cover come to have the 3 January 2006 date, issue 140, at the top? The source in question is currently citation 18:

Ocampo, Ernesto, ed. (January 3, 2006). "2005 Lo Mejor de la Lucha Mexicana". Súper Luchas (in Spanish). Mexico City, Mexico: Impresos Camsam, SA de CV. p. 9. 140. "Luchador del sur de California Tommy Williams fue anunciado como el campeón en octubre, así que él debe haber derrotado Rocky Romero el 15 de septiembre / Southern California wrestler Tommy Williams was announced as champion in October so he must have defeated Rocky Romer on September 15"

There were also problems with the image of page 9 that you sent. You're welcome to respond by email if you'd prefer to discuss it that way. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

My review

Regarding my review, which always was a review, I didn't use "support" or "oppose", I already think the article doesn't qualify for GA (I'd call it a "C" to low "B"). But as that GA class is not the contested point here, I further refrain from reviewing or commenting. I only hope our Danish author raises the bar for himself a lot higher than what he has done in the past. That means more explanations, more referencing and a much more critical eye on typos, inconsistencies and similar points highlighted in my detailed review where I reviewed every sentence of text. That's imho what a FA is; the best of the best. Not "well, I am satisfied (enough) with mediocrity". All the best for the rest, Tisquesusa (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)