Boy Oh Boy (Alexandra Stan song) is part of the Mami series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alexandra Stan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alexandra Stan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alexandra StanWikipedia:WikiProject Alexandra StanTemplate:WikiProject Alexandra StanAlexandra Stan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
@Cartoon network freak: You said in the GA review that you think the writer is notable. GAs are given based on the opinion of literally one editor. Just because that editor did not have any objections to it and passed your GA, does not mean it is a reliable website nor that your article is a sacred document that must be preserved in all ways. It is said on multiple GA-related guidelines here that GAs can still be substantially improved. Furthermore, your continued use of said writer does not mean they are notable and that you should keep on defending the use of CelebMix, and that doesn't mean you should be restoring everything else that I fixed. Especially the Lithuanian chart, which is against WP:SINGLENETWORK to include, as it is one radio station and there is no indication it is an official chart. So please don't restore it. Thank you. Ss11214:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, editors are allowed to have objections later on to the sources used in an article. Not everyone would know there was an open GA review happening at the time it happened (in 2017). Besides, what other websites has Jonathan Currinn written for, and how does this make a "published expert in the field" per WP:SELFPUB? A cursory Google search doesn't reveal that he's anything other than a writer in his mid-20s who's mostly known for writing for an unreliable website. Being an expert is what is required before we can cite them at websites that have been determined to be unreliable per that guideline. Also, tags about sources being unreliable or there being a concern about their unreliability are allowed to remain in an article. Unless you have fixed or addressed the problem, do not remove them. It does not mean without CelebMix or with it being there, that your article is going to lose its GA status. Ss11214:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to clarify that the reliability of a web source is generally shown by providing evidence of editorial oversight. There has been a discussion at the RSN about this, and an editor considered Currinn's work to be reliable given his credentials. However, I do not see any indication of editorial oversight on the website, and its writers appear to be volunteers. I would also like to know what these "credentials" are for Currinn exactly. His profile includes a description of himself as a "blogger" and it would be helpful to know if he published anywhere else, ideally in a publication with editorial oversight. Graduating from a university alone should not quality a person as a reliable source/journalist for Wikipedia standards. I think that this is a good topic to investigate further. I am always terrible at judging what is reliable or not as I tend to go more on the side of reliable (maybe it is because I primarily work on entertainment topics that go outside the scope of peer reviewed journals and publications). Maybe a new discussion at the RSN would be helpful to get new opinions? Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following part (I also write for Channillo, Outlet Magazine, SPECTRUMM, Fuzzable, Modern Magazine, and Electric Mode.) is from the author link provided above so he has written for other publications. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cartoon network freak: Your opinion is not enough to negate concerns over reliability of a source. Please do not remove tags like this unless you address the problem (i.e. not just providing a link and saying "I think so") and there is consensus to remove it. Your GA is not going to be revoked because another editor has questioned the reliability of a source. So, regarding your edit summary, the source is not reliable. You're in the absolute minority on that one, because every other editor I have spoken to on this site does not believe it is reliable (IndianBio, SNUGGUMS are among them). I also see this is not the only Alexandra Stan GA to use CelebMix so overtly. I'd advise you to stop using a website that unwritten consensus has determined is not reliable. If the information is notable, it will have been talked about in other sources, i.e. not a blog like CelebMix. Ss11219:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: Bringing back his credidentials into discussions, Currinn really seems to be a reliable writer and critic. I also don't see any problem in including his work in Wikipedia articles since he's not reporting any sort of controversial information, rather than his own review—which based on the above mentioned would be reliable. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47:@Cartoon network freak: I haven't heard of any of those websites that he has reportedly written for. I don't think he or his opinion are really worthy of inclusion. It doesn't really matter if a website is not publishing potentially controversial information, we shouldn't be using it if is a history of being removed from articles on Wikipedia. I will open a discussion at RSN about it shortly. Ss11220:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
