Talk:Michael Savage

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Queen of Hearts in topic GA Reassessment
Former good articleMichael Savage was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 23, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Is he a conspiracy theorist?

edit

This keeps getting removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've re-added it, with two WP:RS which specifically use the words "conspiracy theories" in their description of him. There are more RS to verify the description, but we don't want to WP:OVERCITE in the lead section. This could be expanded in the main body of the article: he's promoted Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, white genocide conspiracy theory, linking Christine Blasey Ford to the CIA and the Steele dossier, etc. It's a reasonable description by WP standards. Freezer Bernie (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Radio

edit

The Radio section paragraph begins:

"In mid 2006, Savage had 8–10 million listeners per week, which made his show the third most widely heard broadcast in the United States at that time."

The following paragraph gives the same number of listeners as in 2006:

"By 2009, The Savage Nation had an audience of 8 to 10 million listeners on 400 stations across the United States, making it the second most listened-to radio talk show in the country at the time."

One of these would seem to be in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpeterkins (talkcontribs)

Question about the article's neutrality

edit

A quick overview of the article raises concerns about the neutrality of it, as well as the decision to declare it a "good article". The article is unnecessarily long, reads like an endorsement, and downplays the criticism of the subject and the controversies he's involved in, attributing all criticism, even when it comes from reliable sources, and generally feels like it borders on whitewashing. In addition, "consipracy theorist" seems to have been removed again, despite the claim being properly cited. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA concerns

edit

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • There is a "neutrality concerns" orange banner in the article, which should be resolved.
  • There are uncited passages throughout the article, including whole paragraphs.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

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 page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Heartstalk) 23:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is an orange "Criticism NPOV" banner at the top of the article. There is also uncited text, and very long sections that should be broken up with level 3 headings or reformatted. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 14 September 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.