Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Slender Man/1

Slender Man

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) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is reliable sourcing (2b) and due weight in the "References in media" section, where the listings seem to include every media reference regardless of importance, and include unsourced statements, primary sources, and fanwiki sources.

Besides that, the article structure is unorthodox. The "History" L2 contains the entirely-unrelated-to-history "Description" L3. "Folkloric qualities", "Copyright", and "References in media" are all at least unusual L2 headings. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured. As for the media section, how does one decide which inclusion is worthy? Serendi ^podous 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements to the article structure.

Regarding the media section, it's an essay, but WP:IPCEXAMPLES is a good guide on this stuff, and basically says that the work should be significant, the mention should be significant, and that the mention should have been noted by reliable sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concretely going through a couple examples from the article, if that helps:

Minecraft Endermen: This one is probably fine, as a significant element of a popular game, but ideally we'd have better sourcing than igxpro.com, which appears to be a blog reposting social media speculation. [1] [2]
Lost Girl: This one is fine, seems to be a major element of a popular television episode, sourced to RS.
"Sympathy for Slender Man": This one's very shaky. A filler short; the cited source doesn't actually say anything other that hosting the short.
My Little Pony: This isn't a significant mention. As the text indicates, it is a "brief cameo". ~ A412 ^talk! 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+Article doesn't even have reception section; which is important for every fictional character articles. Same issue with Michael Myers. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely outdated. At least four academic works (Chess and Shira, Peck, Asimov, Slender Man is Coming) dedicated to Slender Man exist, none of whose content are adequately covered in the article. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 00:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links? Serendi ^podous 12:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "reception" section would have been easier ten years ago. Nowadays the Slender Man is a forgotten and discredited meme tied forever to an act of senseless violence. Serendi ^podous 15:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the references in media title should be renamed as "In popular culture". Also, that section shouldn't be written like that. Article a little bit outdated as it seems? and there are still unsourced claim. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What unsourced claims? And outdated in what way? Also, while your sources do make the connection between slenderman and enderman, igxpro is the only one that explains how the connection was made. Serendi ^podous 23:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have rewritten it. Looks good now. There are still some cn tags at development section and it might need a bit expansion I think; the quote in history sec seems to be a bit messy? Also, try removing citations on the lead and cite it in the body. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortex3427:, @Greenish Pickle!:, could you please sort your comments? There seem to be a couple threads here, but they're all broken up between indents. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt like some were not covered yet (like what Voltrex said) for such a popular character like this, but for now, my concerns were from the history section that I replied to above. I'll leave it to Vortex since he is more familiar with this than I am as a video game character editor. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A412, Serendipodous, Greenish Pickle!, and Vortex3427: are the issues resolved to your satisfaction? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issues I raised (bloated, poorly sourced "References in media" / IPC section), and section organization, are resolved to my satisfaction. I don't know about the outdatedness concerns. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the folklore qualities should be renamed "reception"? and then moved it into the last section. I also feel like it should be expanded more with scholar sources. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were going to call it reception I would have to split it, since it isn't all about reception. And reception by whom? The parents of Waukesha, Wisconsin? I also think it is where it needs to be, because the idea that it's folklore should be above the fact that it is not public domain. As for more sources, well, there's a book apparently. Almost everyone in said book is already cited in the article, but if you want it, I suppose I could buy it. I'm not exactly rolling in cash, does anyone want to go halvsies on it? Serendi ^podous 13:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Hmm. Then the remaining issues for you would be to fix the refencing issues and add authors like ref 66 and ref 67 then replace the ref 71 into better one. After that I don't have problem with article keeping its GA status. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Serendi ^podous 11:11, 24 April 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.