Talk:The Vancouver Voice

message: *not there yet: only two sources, one of which is run by the entity and is a myspace page which does not meet the guidelines for Wikipedia:Independent sources. Also, a lot of rather short sentences, citations go after the punctuation, in-line citations should be moved to footnotes to match rest of the article, and there should not be any WP:COI editing. It is a good start, good layout. Aboutmovies 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: I have had to fail this article based on the criteria found at WP:WIAGA.  The following fixes are needed:
*Well under the "broadness" requirement for a Good Article.  While not a work of fiction, one aspect of WP:FICT applies here; the article is almost entirely a summary of the content of the newspaper.  There is little besides that.  What the article needs to flesh it out is:
**Critical review in other sources
**Awards won or citations received
**Readership figures, revenue, statistics, something like that.
***comment: The paper has only been out for 7 months. enough said there. VanTucky 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't a reliable source, it also shouldn't be considered for an external link. See WP:EL for more information.
*This entire paragraph is unreferenced, original research, and filled with POV problems: "Notable distinctions in content and objective include a general lack of investigative stories, local or national news, and political reporting. "Straight" news is more the target of the daily newspaper The Columbian. There is also an absence of personal and classified advertising (which reflects the objection some residents of the generally more conservative community of voters have with ads for call girls found in other papers, see Clark County). Other regular features include..."
As a whole, this article has a LONG way to go before it is a GA.  I have given a long list of places to start in improving it.  Please feel free to renominate it at WP:GAC when the article is up to standard.  If you feel this review was handled incorrectly, please ask for remediation at WP:GA/R.  If you have any questions, please drop a line at my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failed: Notes needed for improvement

message: ... see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/2011 March 12 Steven Walling 07:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a template for that. :) Closing the listing; added above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, thanks for wrapping this up. Valfontis (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just for record keeping purposes... 

message: As part of the copyvio investigation, we now know that much of the current article is unsourced.  This also implies that much of the article, including the lede, needs to be deleted, as this is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, that readers can verify sources.  Note in particular that 
"About the Vancouver Voice" cannot be used as a reference because that page came from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is by definition not reliable.  This site says that VV is published monthly and that circulation figures are unaudited.  The current unsourced article says that the "newspaper" is published once every two months.  I'm putting the word "newspaper" in quotes because I'm not used to calling something a newspaper that only has news once every two months.  As I mentioned at AfD, some common references that normally list newspapers do not show VV.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect: . Since you seem to disagree with the AfD, while I !voted to keep this article, why don't you seek out some neutral third opinons about how to improve the article? Maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism or even the Copyeditors' Guild? Valfontis (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't really have any stake in the article one way or the other, but would be glad to see somebody fix it up (including removing unsourced information). I'd like to point out one issue in your argument though, Unscintillating: the fact that it was copied from WP doesn't make the "About" page on VV is no better or worse as a source than any other entity's "about us" page. Quite apart from the ethics and copyright issues involved, that act of copying is an endorsement of the text's accuracy. -Pete (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete is correct about the "About us" page.  That it began as Wikipedia text does not now make it any less (or more) reliable that other similar "about us" pages.  As for the publishing schedule, "bi-monthly" appears to be just a mistake: the "about us" page says the paper publishes "bi-weekly", which is consistent with the publication dates shown on the website.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is by definition not a reliable WP:RS source.  Maybe I'm missing something, but endorsed or not endorsed, we know the source and the source is by definition not WP:RS.  Since my discussion here on the talk page has not produced any movement in finding reliable sources, I'm adding citation-needed tags to move towards deleting the unsourced text.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As shown in the foregoing discussion, no one has agreed with you.  Please seek consensus here before making any such deletions.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a "table captain" attitude opposes the very consensus being advocated.  I suggest that previous respondent would do well to speak for him/herself in any case (such as saying "I don't see that anyone has agreed with you").  Also suggest that previous respondent review WP:BURDEN, which is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", and states, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them. Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I've updated it with a mention of Griffith's work. Steven Walling 00:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  no references for much of article