Talk:The Tuck Box

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@

Which specific sources from that search do you believe are

Left guide (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The first three are from secondary sources. Looks like the discussion did not come to any conclusion. At best, Arcadia Publishing reliability should be assessed on a case by case basis, not unilaterally disregarded. Again, it is not listed on the not a

WP:RSP

.

You are deleting large chunks of text with citations stating "highly questionable sources". This does not seem to a good enough reason to delete important information about the building. If this issue is not resolved promptly, I intend to escalate it to

WP:DISPUTE. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, it should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, that's what I said in my first reply. Per

WP:COISOURCE

issues that make her work highly problematic for our purposes (and the two Arcadia citations I removed from this article are authored by her).

You offered the first three results from Google Scholars, and they are all questionable at best in terms of GNG-worthiness. They include a government document, and two books published by Arcadia. And that doesn't even yet touch on

Left guide (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

So, you are asking for evidence of reliability. For Dramov's book Historic Buildings of Downtown Carmel-by-the-Sea, it was reviewed by Craig MacDonald here. He says: "Dramov proves her statement with an in-depth look at who created this Fairy Tale-type spot by researching many structures, architects, builders, politicians, celebrities and others." Does this review help to establish reliability? Greg Henderson (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The review link you provided looks like a self-published tourist site, so I don't see how that site on its own is qualified to confer Dramov with reliability for

Left guide (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

See Craig MacDonald- Historian, Journalist, Author. He has done 80 book reviews. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's 80 book reviews on that self-published site, which carries virtually no weight. There are actually much stronger claims made on his bio there and his site goldrushglimpses.com that might be helpful if they can be corroborated by reliable sources.

Left guide (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Also just to be clear, Dramov won't be able to count towards notability on Carmel-related topics due to the well-documented

Left guide (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Where are the well-documented COI problems for Dramov?

What about Monica Hudson and Kent Seavey? Greg Henderson (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was in the RSN discussion you started and basically every other talk page discussion we've had about Arcadia. Netherzone is the one who furnished the evidence of Dramov's COI. You will need to prove that those other two authors are reliable if you wish to make a case. I will say though that I've seen the name "Kent Seavey" as an author on many Carmel city documents you've used which means that person likely works for the city, so it seems doubtful that Seavey can be considered an independent author for notability purposes.

Left guide (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Great discussion. I appreciate your feedback!

Here is a start of a table we can use to keep track of sources and if they count toward

WP:GNG

:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
1	The source is a noted book by a well-known author, Alissandra Dramov, with a book review here.[1][2]	? Dramov may have a vested interest in promoting the historical homes, mansions, and buisinesses.	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	? Unknown
2	The source is a noted book by a well-known author, Kent Seavey, with book review here[3] About Kent Seavey [4]	? Seavey as an author on many Carmel city documents, which means he likely works for the city, so it seems doubtful that Seavey can be considered an independent author	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Greg Henderson (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]