Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Eureka Stockade defenders/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Eureka Stockade defenders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a fairly comprehensive list of the best-documented Eureka Stockade rebels Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that this nomination was not transcluded to WP:FLC until now. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Charles Ross is a link to a disambiguation page Dajasj (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
[edit]- Per MOS:THISISALIST, the article should not start with "This is a list..." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Steelkamp
[edit]Oppose. This list is heavily reliant on www.eurekapedia.org. That website is written by just two people, with no indication of fact checking or quality control by someone else like what would happen in a newspaper or a non self-published book. As a list relating to history, I would expect to see more scholarly sources. Steelkamp (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Using a user-submitted wiki as a source is a deal-breaker, yeah, and if there isn't some movement on this soon I'm going to close the nomination. @Robbiegibbons: do you intend on addressing this concern? --PresN 13:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @PresN and @Steelkamp, I would like to disagree on this issue. Eurekapedia seems to be written by two domain experts, works by both of them have been cited in this article. Also, while looking through some of the pages there, they seem to be reliable and have proper citations. I'm a little busy at this time, so I can't check the h-indices or peer reviews of the two writers' works, but I think academia would also have found them reliable sources. Also, just because a site uses MediaWiki, that doesn't mean it is unreliable and user generated. See the discussion at the FAC for Sher Shah Suri, where Banglapedia is considered a reliable source as it has been compiled by scholars. I think we can allow this here, though I could be wrong as well. Please let me know what you think. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You could convince me to rescind my oppose by showing that the authors of that source meet the requirements at WP:EXPERTSPS, i.e.: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, looking closer, it does appear to basically be a selfpub source by Clare Gervasoni & Dorothy Wickham, and not publicly editable, which clears that up, but a) the references should then have the author's name(s), and b) they need to be shown to meet EXPERTSPS, like Steelkamp said - right now the only used source that has them as authors is The Eureka Encyclopedia, which appears to also be a self-published work. It's possible they are, I'd just like to see some proof. --PresN 15:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @PresN and @Steelkamp, Gervasoni & Wickham seem to run the Ballarat Heritage Service and its associated publishing arm, the latter is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. The authors seem to have okish h-indices for a subject this niche, I'll have to check academic reviews of their books or papers published in notable journals to further confirm this. What further proof would be required for establishing reliability? Matarisvan (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking about this. The Eurekapedia source has marginal reliability at best. It's still a self published source, even if written by experts. I would find that ok if it is used to source minor parts of the whole list, but it is being used to source large parts of this list. For that reason, my oppose still stands. Steelkamp (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @PresN and @Steelkamp, Gervasoni & Wickham seem to run the Ballarat Heritage Service and its associated publishing arm, the latter is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. The authors seem to have okish h-indices for a subject this niche, I'll have to check academic reviews of their books or papers published in notable journals to further confirm this. What further proof would be required for establishing reliability? Matarisvan (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, looking closer, it does appear to basically be a selfpub source by Clare Gervasoni & Dorothy Wickham, and not publicly editable, which clears that up, but a) the references should then have the author's name(s), and b) they need to be shown to meet EXPERTSPS, like Steelkamp said - right now the only used source that has them as authors is The Eureka Encyclopedia, which appears to also be a self-published work. It's possible they are, I'd just like to see some proof. --PresN 15:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You could convince me to rescind my oppose by showing that the authors of that source meet the requirements at WP:EXPERTSPS, i.e.: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @PresN and @Steelkamp, I would like to disagree on this issue. Eurekapedia seems to be written by two domain experts, works by both of them have been cited in this article. Also, while looking through some of the pages there, they seem to be reliable and have proper citations. I'm a little busy at this time, so I can't check the h-indices or peer reviews of the two writers' works, but I think academia would also have found them reliable sources. Also, just because a site uses MediaWiki, that doesn't mean it is unreliable and user generated. See the discussion at the FAC for Sher Shah Suri, where Banglapedia is considered a reliable source as it has been compiled by scholars. I think we can allow this here, though I could be wrong as well. Please let me know what you think. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzo_fan2007
[edit]- Oppose as an unnecessary content fork of Battle of the Eureka Stockade. Only five of the entries in the list are notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles. This could easily be added to the Battle article, possibly with a summary table and some brief mentions of key aspects of the defenders. Doesn't appear notable or relevant enough for a standalone list. All of this also goes for List of detainees at the Eureka Stockade. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robbiegibbons: If you do not address the concerns raised by ChrisTheDude and Gonzo fan2007, then I intend to close this nomination. Please let us know if you wish to address the concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that the nominated list is now at AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm failing this nomination because the nominator has been given a fair bit of leniency and time but, despite the pings, has not addressed or responded to any comments or concerns that have come up. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.