Talk:Neighbours 30th Anniversary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNeighbours 30th Anniversary has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 24, 2023Good article nomineeListed
January 1, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Therealscorp1an (talk). Self-nominated at 22:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Neighbours 30th Anniversary; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Therealscorp1an: Good article. Not exactly a fan of alt0 but the other hooks are decent enough. Though, i'm not seeing where alt1 is cited in the source (also the source is youtube which is something). Nor does the source for alt2 seem to mention that over 44 cast members starred in the anniversary. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kilkelly, Daniel (18 March 2015). "Neighbours producer shares 30th anniversary gossip and teasers". Digital Spy. Retrieved 27 September 2023.
  2. ^ Fletcher, Alan; Mason, James; Dennis, Stefan (4 March 2015). Neighbours Backstage - Erinsborough Festival Disaster!. Neighbours via YouTube. Retrieved 27 September 2023.
  3. ^ Klompus, Jack (27 February 2015). "MasterChef Australia judge Matt Preston to appear on Neighbours". Digital Spy. Retrieved 27 September 2023.
@Onegreatjoke: Hi, thanks for reviewing this! The sources were a long shot because the source only covers Matt Preston's appearance. The over 44 cast members is actually an amalgamation of a bunch of primary sources (the episodes themselves), which wouldn't actually cover all the cast members because a lot of the guest characters (like the Driver or Constable Ian McKay – see the article) were never going to be covered in media sources since, well, they're guest characters. These characters are mentioned in the article, but the episodes themselves serve as the reference. So, yeah, I was a bit iffy on that source, but it served well for Matt Preston and the episodes themselves serve as sources for other 43 cast members. Is there any way we could get around this or anything? Thanks a heap. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an: That's definitely interesting of a source choice. I'm not exactly sure if how good of a source that is, especially with the other youtube sources (still not exactly sure how that youtube source fits with alt1 to be honest). It might be good enough to approve though it depends. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an: were you able to resolve Onegreatjoke's sourcing concerns? Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm so sorry for the late response. No, I wasn't. But perhaps this reference might still work? The issue is, the information in this DYK is not information from one particular source. The information in this DYK is an amalgamation of information found in the article, supported by numerous sources. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: Does the above satisfy your concerns? If not, what needs to happen to get this hook approved? Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: So does this mean it will be on DYK? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I too have concerns about the excessive reliance on YouTube videos. These are a problem because there is no way of verifying whether the information cited to them is WP:UNDUE. As it stands, I don't think the article meets WP:DYKPOL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: What about the references makes it WP:UNDUE? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their very existence. If the information they contained was DUE, it would be cited in reliable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an: Are you willing to look for replacements for the YouTube sources? @AirshipJungleman29: are you willing to let this appear on the Main Page as-is, or should it be rejected? Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has caused me more grief, than joy, and I do not see any other way to get around the YouTube reference, so I assume it is up to User:AirshipJungleman29 to decide now. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a promoter, I would not put this article in a queue. If you agree, Z1720, this nomination should be rejected; if not, I will disengage and leave it up to you and others. These issues should really have been addressed in the GA review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an and AirshipJungleman29: I am going to open a GAR of this article, so that other editors can weigh in with their concerns. If other editors are not concerned with the use of the YouTube videos and allow this to retain its GA status, then I have no problems with running this at DYK. If the article does not conform to GA status, then the article won't be eligible for DYK. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 and AirshipJungleman29: I am content with canceling this DYK now. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator indicated above that they would like to withdraw this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Neighbours 30th Anniversary[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the article's DYK nomination, an editor expressed concern with the reliance of YouTube videos. I'm bringing this here to see if editors share this concern, and to determine if the article does meet the GA criteria for sourcing. Thanks to everyone who takes a look. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who expressed the concern—I was troubled by the excessive reliance on self-published, non-independent YouTube videos for large parts of the article, especially the "Cast" and "Filming" sections. In total, there are 67 individual citations to YouTube videos, and one to Facebook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a problem with most of the YouTube videos in this article as the videos are mainly from the show's official verified account and are used in cases where there isn't currently a better source available for them. The sourced videos are reliable, according to WP:RSPYT, as they were uploaded by the official channel and are therefore able to be verified to the uploader. YouTube links have been and are able to be sourced in GAs (1, 2). Happily888 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happily888, those discussions took place over a decade and a half ago. Do you know of any more recent discussions? If videos were uploaded to the official channel, that surely means that they are self-published, non-independent, and primary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See this more recent RfC discussion which shows if the verified channel owner is known and the content is not a copyvio, the content inherits inherent reliability and is able to be sourced on wikipedia. For example, some of the interview videos sourced in this article contain information which isn't posted elsewhere and therefore are the best sources of information for cast members. Happily888 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, if the videos were third-party sources Happily888. But these are not third-party, they are non-WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:PRIMARY sources.
From WP:IS: "To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia."
These videos might be the "best sources of information for cast members", but that does not mean that the information should be included. It is policy that Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29: However, there are some cases where information should be included in articles: if the best source for this is primary and a video, it should be the source included. The only way to link such sources in video form, whilst avoiding copyvios, is to use videos posted only from an official channel.
WP:IS does state that independent sources are required in articles but it does not state that every source must be independent; rather, it instead allows non-independent sources to be used to fill in non-controversial details, with the section you quoted referring to statements about the subjects importance and why requiring independent sources. A primary source could be reliable whilst secondary source could be unreliable, it is better to instead look at sources on a case-by-case basis for the best possible source for that information, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or WP:PRIMARYCARE, which provides examples of primary sources being acceptable in some cases such as direct quotations and sourcing information about plots or characters. Happily888 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I can accept that Happily888. Thanks for your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.