Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Obtund ( talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Any questions and comments concerning this table should be posed in Discussion subsection below.

This article was quickfailed for the following reason:

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. ^[1]

a. All the sources are books except for twelve sources.

b. There is no way to verify almost all of the sources since they are from books.

c. Five of the online sources were the London Gazette which makes accuracy plausible.

Disscussion

Dispute

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, I draw your attention to WP:SOURCES and I quote "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form);" and from WP:SOURCEACCESS "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources." There are subjects that have no reliable on-line sources. Edgepedia ( talk) 05:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Can I ask you to look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, level two subsection Accessibility, level three subsection Access to sources. It clearly states, "Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." The references you give are books that frankly I am unable to access. Obtund ^Talk 12:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Dear God. Failed because the sources are books? That's the first time I've ever seen an article fail GA for that reason. Are there no libraries where these may be borrowed? You might as well put NBR 224 and 420 Classes up for WP:GAR, because it has exactly one online source. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I checked and no I could not get them, but if you know an editor who does have all these books, then by all means he can review it. Obtund ^Talk 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Personally I have:

• Bruce, J Graeme (1983). Steam to Silver. Capital Transport. ISBN  0-904711-45-5.
• Day, John R.; Reed, John (2008) [1963]. The Story of London's Underground (10th ed.). Capital Transport. ISBN  978-1-85414-316-7.
• Goudie, Frank (1990). Metropolitan Steam Locomotives. Capital Transport. ISBN  978-1-85414-118-7.
• Rose, Douglas (2007) [1980]. The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History (8th ed.). Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. ISBN  978-1-85414-315-0. {{ cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored ( help)
• Simpson, Bill (2003). A History of the Metropolitan Railway. Vol 1. Lamplight Publications. ISBN  1-899246-07-X.

plus different editions of:

• Horne, Mike (2003). The Metropolitan Line. Capital Transport. ISBN  1-85414-275-5.
• Horne, Mike (2006). The District Line. Capital Transport. ISBN  1-85414-292-5.
• Lee, Charles E. (1956). The Metropolitan District Railway. The Oakwood Press. ASIN  B0000CJGHS.

and I expect I could easily obtain the following:

• Badsey-Ellis, Antony (2005). London's Lost Tube Schemes. Capital Transport. ISBN  1-85414-293-3.
• Wolmar, Christian (2004). The Subterranean Railway: how the London Underground was built and how it changed the city forever. Atlantic. ISBN  1-84354-023-1.

through either libraries or second-hand booksellers. However the following are over 25 years old so may be more difficult:

• Bruce, J Graeme (1987). Workhorses of the London Underground. Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. ISBN  0-904711-87-0.
• Green, Oliver (1987). The London Underground — An illustrated history. Ian Allan. ISBN  0-7110-1720-4.
• Jackson, Alan (1986). London's Metropolitan Railway. David & Charles. ISBN  0-7153-8839-8.

But I have a COI: I am a contributor to the article, so am debarred from reviewing it. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Well I don't and since you seem to be the only editor who has, go review the article! Obtund ^Talk 00:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply

As I said, I am debarred under Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines#How to review an article, second bullet.

I feel that I must raise this matter at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 17#Are books unreliable sources? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• What a complete nonsense. Reviewer is inexperienced and out to lunch. Regards.-- Kürbis ( ✔) 10:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• What the hell? - Obtund please read well the policies before doing this kind of big mistakes. If you are about to review an article at GA is because you understand the policies involved in the process, and for what i've seen above, you aren't. Same with your review of Samsung Galaxy S III. Regards. — Hahc 21 20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I've just found that the same reviewer had previously quickfailed Talk:Elementary algebra/GA1 for almost exactly the same reasons... there are only two real differences, these being the number of non-book sources, and whether London Gazette is mentioned or not. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply