User:ReaderofthePack/sandbox2

Here is a rundown of the sourcing in the article Secrets of the Last Nazi. I didn't want to have to go through one on one, but here it is. (So far up to #40) I will go through a final summary when I am done, which will include the actual number of sources (not including the ones that are page cites from the novel).

The basic overview is that the majority of the sources are through self-published sources like blogs, Twitter, and Lulu books. The nature of SPS means that these are not given any true editorial oversight, meaning that these people can get something wrong and there's no one to catch them on it. This does not necessarily mean that the sources might be posting anything horribly incorrect, but we cannot give one article an exception over others - the rule on SPS needs to be evenly applied. I also need to note that some of the SPS were used multiple times, but were not identified as the specific blog or the same blog source. In one instance a blog is misidentified as a "US magazine interview" despite it very clearly being a blog source. The blog was not identified by name, nor are many blogs. They're instead used along with notations from the editor, which gives off the impression that there are more sources than there are.

Other sources are entirely primary, such as the author's website, his agent's website, their Twitter accounts, and his alumni paper. These might be usable for basic details, but another issue is that some of the information they're claiming is for things that aren't basic details like page numbers and so on. They're trying to back up information like Amazon rankings, reviews, and similar things that are frankly, of zero interest to Wikipedia because they're ultimately things decided by the random public. This sort of information is only pertinent to Wikipedia when it's covered in secondary, reliable sources, the type that would show notability. My reason for removing the bulk of these from the article was that they were being used to back up claims that would otherwise try to claim notability.

Some of the sources were slightly dodgy, specifically the radio show. It was run through a corporation, but little info was given about the show, whether or not it goes through an editorial process, or anything to that extent. Just because a show exists does not automatically mean it's usable - particularly since we cannot verify the extent of the coverage in the show.

The only two usable sources were the Sun review, which is unverified, and the Bookseller, which was brief and otherwise looks to be a rephrasing of a press release.

Also troublesome is that some of the citations are used multiple times, which gives off the impression that there was more coverage than there is. Some of the notations were assertions that the sources (predominantly blogs and other unreliable sources) should be seen as reliable.

I'm going to lump these by who the source is from, since this would otherwise be unwieldly.

Final summary

Here is the final tally of overall sources used. This includes times where the same source was cited through multiple outlets, meaning that the same blog post was referenced via Twitter and so on. This does not include the times where the book itself, Secrets of the Last Nazi, was used to source itself. This includes primary sources, since in many cases they were used to reference things not posted by King.

All in all there were forty four sources in the article, which is in contrast with the 105 source links in the article. This does not include the instances where some of the reviews were referred to in primary sources, which I didn't include because there were just so many of those. If you subtract the amount of sources that are not about the book and the time Wikipedia is used as a source, this brings the number down to forty. About fifteen of those are primary.

It is not against the rules for a source to be used multiple times, which is why there is the option to use <ref name= > so you can show that it is cited multiple times. However the issue here (other than the reliability of the sources) is that these sources are not always identified as the same source and in some instances the lack of identification seems to be used to give off the impression that there was more coverage than there is. Some of these sources were used multiple times in one sentence and in many instances seemed to be superfluous, used only to drive up the amount of citations in the hopes that no one would notice.

The reliability of the sources is very much in question, especially given the way that they are used - but that's in a different paragraph. The sources in the article are predominantly self-published and primary sources. Many are self-published blogs and in one case there is a blog interview that is not about King and a self-published Lulu book. At one point Wikipedia is used as a source. These SPS give off no indication that they undergo any editorial process. At one point it's asserted that one of the blogs won an award, but a look at the award shows that it is a blog award given out by another blog. There are also several book blurbs that are used as if they were full reviews. As stated elsewhere, book blurbs are comments that are solicited by the publisher/author/agent. They are typically 1-2 sentences in length and are written with the express intent to promote the book and by extension both the author and the blurb writer. Some sources are in places that are connected to the author, such as the alumni magazine, Netgalley, PR companies, and his agent. Others might be usable, except that we cannot verify the content stated in the article. This is problematic for several reasons, given how some of the blogs and other sources are represented.

This leads me to how the sources are used. Several of them are used several times in one sentence or in the following sentence. However even worse is that some of the sources are grossly misinterpreted. At one point a one sentence comment in a blog interview is given the same weight as a full length review. Much worse, however, is the editor's tendency to use press release material and claim that it was written by a blogger or other agency. This is done several times with the blog Writing Belle, where the article quotes an "About the Author" section. These sections are taken from press material supplied by the publisher/agent/author. As someone who used to run a blog and knows several who do, I can say that I could probably count on one hand the amount of times that the "about the author" section is written by the blogger - and that number is zero. Add on to this that several of the sources are counted twice in the article and that several of the blog sources are used to back up facts in the article (some of which are reviews). This also does not include the instances where Amazon is used to give off the impression that the book is selling well outside of the merchant site, as the sources say Amazon while the main article does not specify this. I also note that King tries to say that the book is one of the top sellers in the general thriller category while referring to a very specific and much more narrow category. It is also used to back up claims that he is selling better than many mainstream, household name authors, something that is unlikely given some of the names. (John Le Carre, Chris Ryan, Ken Follett and Wilbur Smith)

This misinterpretation of several of the sources in the article that can be viewed makes me seriously doubt the coverage in the sources that we cannot. Given how some of the sources in this article are grossly misused, I think that it's reasonable to want to be able to verify the extent of the sources that are not on the Internet. I also find it very difficult to believe that this is not a COI editor, as the article is similar in theme to many articles written by openly COI/paid editors.

Pages in book

These are parts in the book where the editor uses the book to back up points. There's actually nothing wrong with doing this, but what's troublesome about this is that the article editor chooses to use a relative few of these, choosing instead to use book blogs to back up plot points and factoids in the book. This brings up issues of original research, as the book blogs and other SPS can be seen as bringing their own interpretation to the book - something that can be problematic given that the SPS have undergone no editorial process to back up whether their claims are correct. I think that this was done in order to bolster the idea that the book had more coverage than it actually did, since they figured that they could use the same source over and over again in the hopes that no one would pick up on it.

Something that's also troubling is that the book is also used to back up claims in the article, particularly the phrase "the book claims that Hitler’s supposed heroics as a young soldier in World War One were propaganda, and that "several respected Western journalists colluded in the myth" that Hitler was brave." This is pretty much the epitome of original research given that the source (58) writes "On page 185 of the book, chapter 33, the allegation is made that "Hitler lied in Mein Kampf" by pretending to have left Vienna in 1912, whereas in fact he left later and was draft dodging in 1912 and 1913. The allegation is repeated elsewhere in the book, for example on page 418 of Secrets of the Last Nazi."

There are fifteen page quotes.

The Sun

1. Tom Wright, in a review for The Sun, published on page 54 of the 16th July 2015 edition. This is a review that is unverified at this point in time. This would not have been a problem and didn't bother me at first, other than a bit of hesitation over the fact that The Sun is classified as a tabloid. However what bothered me later is that there was double dipping later on (a citing of the Twitter account for the Sun) and given that so many of the other sources are unusable, I'd like to be able to verify this review.
2. Wright, T, 16th July 2015, The Sun page 54. Same review, used again.
3. This is The Sun’s description of Myles Munro, from their review on 16th July 2015, page 54. Same review, used again. Used to back up a quote in the character section about a character.
4. The Sun describes him as "Shadowy" (July 16th 2015, page 54). Same review, used again. Used to back up another quote in the character section.
5. According to The Sun (July 16th 2015, page 54), Dieter is "deranged". Same thing here.
6. Wright, T, 16th July 2015, 'The Sun' page 54: "(Secrets of the Last Nazi) romps along at a ferocious pace". Used again to back up a comment about the book's page.

The Bookseller

1. The Bookseller. This is a brief article and while Bookseller is considered to be a reliable source for the most part, this is a pretty brief article and it looks to be heavily taken from a press release. I didn't really look as closely at this until I saw that several of the sources in the article were unreliable. This is used 3 times in the article, each a different cite.
2. [1] Used again, but in this case it's described as a magazine interview. I need to note that this quote was published on Bookoture's website, which makes it seem more likely that this post was a rephrased print release.
3. [2] Used again, to back up the publishing dates.

Book Trade

1. [3] This is a press release and is openly stated as such. Used twice. This instance is used to verify that Bookoture purchased the rights to the book, something that could be satisfied with the Bookseller article. I need to note that later in the article it's used again and referenced as if it was an article and not a press release. It's also remarkably similar to the Bookseller article, which makes it extremely more likely that the Bookseller article is a press release.
2. [4] Used to back up claims of further books.

The Book Show

1. [5] This is a tweet that says that he was on the show, but does not show how in depth it was or what was said. However this tweet is being used to back up a quote from the show. Used twice in the article. I also need to note that I can't entirely verify the show as a whole, so it's kind of dodgy - most of my questions surround the fact that we cannot verify the show commentary, which should be brought into question given the amount of SPS in the article and the various claims.
2. [6] This is the basic website for the show. It does not give you access to the interview and it's used to back up a specific quote, the claim that the book is "controversial".
3. [7] Same thing, used to back up claims of further books.

Merchant sources

Amazon

1. Amazon book page, American. This is the purchase page. Merchant sources are almost never usable as a reliable source and usage of a merchant source can be seen as an endorsement of the book or the site. Used twice
2. UK book page. This is used to back up a book blurb, which is unusable for notability purposes and also cannot be verified.
3. [8] American site, used to back up the US release date.
4. Amazon UK. Used to back up the claim that an author reviewed his book. Does not go to specific review, instead references a quote in the plot section added by the publisher/author/agent.

WH Smith

1. [9] This is used once to back up claims that the book is compared to famous authors' works. HOWEVER I need to note that this references a quote written by the publisher themselves, "Secrets of the Last Nazi is as controversial as it is compelling. A heart-stopping, action-packed and scarily plausible adventure which will captivate fans of Dan Brown, Scott Mariani and Clive Cussler. "

Wikipedia

1. This photo from 1999 was uploaded to Serbian Wikipedia in July 2014. It is alleged that King’s bodyguard in this picture now works for J.K.Rowling. This is source 51 and is used to back up the above claim. Why is it important to note when the photo was uploaded or who the bodyguard currently works for? Also, since this is uploaded to Wikipedia there's also the issue that we can't entirely claim anything in the photo 100%

Goodreads

1. [10] Goes to a reader review, however this is blocked unless you are a Goodreads user. I need to note that anyone can write a Goodreads review, something that has actually been the focus of controversy for the site. There is actually an additional use of Goodreads in the page, which isn't visible, where it's used to back up page counts.

Blogs

Writing Belle (blog)

1. Writing Belle. This is a self-published blog. Per the reasoning above, this SPS is unusable as a reliable source. This specific story is cited 11 times in the same article, which gives off the intention that there is more coverage than is actually warranted. This specific instance is used to back up the bestseller claims on Amazon, which is not something that Wikipedia particularly cares about.
2. Writing Belle This is the same source listed above, also used to back up bestseller claims on Amazon.
3. [11] This is the same source, but in this instance it's listed as a US magazine interview when in reality this was a blog interview. I should note that the name of the blog is not mentioned in the source notation.
4. [12] Same source. Used to back up a claim in the inspiration section.
5. [13] Same source, used to back up a claim about some of his past books.
6. [14] Same source, used to back up a claim about his inspiration and the quote "World War Two still dominates the way modern society thinks about war," which he says is wrong.
7. [15] Same source, used again to back up the same quote.
8. [16] Same source, again cited as a magazine interview. Used to back up a claim in the research section.
9. [17] Same source, used again to cite something in the same sentence.
10. [18] Same source, used to back up the claim "Within one month, the novel had become the best-selling spy story in the UK". This is a pretty lofty claim, given that this means that it'd outsell a lot of very well known authors. The source itself does not actually make this claim. This is a quote taken from the About the Author section, which is written by the author/agent/publisher. The source notation also generally states that the information is "reported in several places". The other sources used to back up this claim are King's agent and his Twitter account.
11. [19] Same source, again referencing the blog and making it seem like the blogger wrote the books. Very deceptive.

A Book Lover's Blog

• [20] Used to back up reviews. Used twice.

Authors Interviews

1. [21] This is used four times in the article. This is an interview of a separate author, but is used as if it was a review. It is also a self-published Wordpress blog. Used in this instance to back up review claims. Note that this is not an interview with King, but with another author, Renita D’Silva". The extent of the "review" (since it is commonly used as if it was a review) is the sentence "Secrets of the Last Nazi by Iain King. It is fabulous. Turns everything you have believed on its head."
2. [22] Same source, but in this instance used as if it was a review instead of an interview. I need to note that it's extremely rare that an author would make negative claims about another author in another article since it's bad for business.
3. [23] Same source, used as if it was a review.
4. [24]. Same source, used to back up the sentence "Many reviewers concluded the book could change profoundly the way people think."

This Chick Reads

1. [25] Used to back up a review quote. Used ten times in the article. The award mentioned is one given out by a fellow blog, another SPS.
2. [26] The same source as above, used to back up another quote.
3. [27] Same source, used to back up another quote.
4. [28] Same source, used as several times in the review section, some in the same sentence.
5. [29] Same source, same sentence.
6. [30] Same source, same sentence.
7. [31] Same source, next sentence.
8. [32] Same source, next sentence.
9. [33] Same source, a few sentences later, used for a comparison to a famous author.
10. [34] Same source, used to back up the sentence " Many reviewers suggested ‘Secrets of the Last Nazi’ should be made into a film."

Accio Adventure

1. [35] Used to back up a review. Used nine times in the article.
2. [36] Same source, used to back up a review quote. I should note that the blog is used for both a negative and a positive quote.
3. [37] Same source. used to back up the claim "while others concluded it could change profoundly the way people think"
4. [38] Same source, used to back up a quote in the character section.
5. [39] Same source, used in the research section to back up the quote "reading this book may make you wish to spend several hours on Google doing research on topics you never imagined your interest in.", which is placed in the same sentence as a quote that says that King's researching is excellent. Why is a review quote in the research section? Why is it being used in a manner that makes the research seem more valid?
6. [40] Same source, used in the reception section.
7. [41] Same source, next sentence after the previous cite.
8. [42] Same source, used a few sentences later for a quote.
9. [43] Same source, used to back up the claim "Many reviewers concluded the book could change profoundly the way people think".

Stacy Alesi

1. [44] Used to back up a review quote. Used nine times in the article.
2. [45] Same review. Used to back up an extensive quote and to back the claim "while others concluded it could change profoundly the way people think"
3. [46] Same review. Used to back up a plot point.
4. [47] Same review, used to back up the claim King’s research has been accepted as meticulous and substantial
5. [48] Same review, used to back up the sentence "Many reviewers concluded the book could change profoundly the way people think."

Ajoobacats blog

1. [49]. Used to back up a review, it's used twice in the article.
2. [50] Same source, used to back up the claims of that the reviewer criticized the author for a "graphic torture scene". However the actual quote is "Complex, packed with action with many twists and turns, as well as quite graphic torture scenes, this book is a definite page-turner." This sentence does not give off the impression that the reviewer saw the scene as a negative thing. There are many reviewers who enjoy this in a book for whatever reason (gore hound, for realism, etc).

Men Reading Books

1. [51] This is a review but it is being used to back up a fact in the plot section. It is used three times in the article.
2. [52] Same review, used to back up a plot point.
3. [53] Same review, used to back up comparisons to a famous author.

The Welsh Librarian

1. [54] Used in the reception section to back up claims of the book's pace. Used twice.

Sean's Book Reviews

1. [55] Used in the reception section. Used once.

Blurbs

David Boyle

1. This is citation 25, but is not backed up with any link. Instead we're told that the quote is "accessible in several places". Boyle is used as a source three times and a link to Netgalley is used elsewhere. I also need to note that there was apparently no review from him, just a routine book blurb used for book jackets, and the source says "David Boyle of The Guardian", which gives off the impression that this was a Guardian review - when it is not. It is a book blurb given by someone who works for the Guardian. The way it is used in the article also gives off the impression that it's a Guardian review.
2. Also, David Boyle of The Guardian concluded: Iain King has come up with a thrilling plot and an ingenious idea that has the possibility to turn everyone's ideas upside down and back to front. This quote is accessible in several places. Does not give a link.

Sources not about the book

1. Relexa Hotels. Used to back up the claim that the Cecilienhof hotel closed. Used only once. I should note that Cecilienhof already has an article in Wikipedia, so there's not any true pressing need to have this source here.
2. Hans Tridle. This is a self-published book, published through Lulu - a place known for publishing some things that have been very unreliable, as they have no editorial process. This book is used to back up a claim made in the book. Used twice.
3. The Atlantic. This is used to back up the statement "King also alleges that Hitler’s personal book collection contained "books on magic… which had almost certainly been thumbed through by the dictator himself,"". Given that the article is not about King and that he should surely have primary sources making this claim, why is it being used to back up a quote that is not in the article? This gives off the false impression that the source pertains to King specifically.
4. Hans Tridle. Used to back up another claim in the book. Still a book published through Lulu.

Twitter

1. King. This is used to back up Amazon sales, not something that Wikipedia particularly cares about. At best this is primary.
2. King. Same thing here, also primary.
3. Caroline Writes. This is a Twitter post discussing a Goodreads review. Self-published source. Used twice on the article, both as if it was a review from a critic. (The word "critic" on Wikipedia is usually used to designate reviewers in RS that are given an editorial process, whereas the general reader reviews are designated as "reader review" to make sure that the difference is noted.)
4. Zaza Curran. Random Twitter review, self-published also used twice.
5. Abu Mubarik. Same thing here, also used twice.
6. King. Used to show Amazon reviews. See, part of the issue with Amazon reviews is that anyone can write them and since we've had cases of people purchasing Amazon reviews and coming on to Wikipedia, this is why they cannot show notability on here.
7. King. Used to back up the claims that it's the best selling book in a very specific category. However in the article it is used to back up the claims that it's the best selling spy thriller in the UK period, not just Amazon.
8. King Used again, this time to claim that the author outsold "books by John Le Carre, Chris Ryan, Ken Follett and Wilbur Smith". Again, Amazon is not mentioned, giving off the impression that it's the best selling book in paperback and e-book in places other than Amazon.
9. King. Used to back up sales claims, specifically "where Kindle sales would later top the thriller category". The image is for a specific category, "Spy Stories & Tales of Espionage", which is not the same thing as the general thriller category.
10. King. Used to back up claims of positive reviews on Amazon. Since you can purchase good Amazon reviews, this is a reason why Amazon rankings mean nothing. I'm not saying that he's done it, but others have (or just written their own) and this makes it an unreliable source.

Primary sources

King's website

1. [56] This lists the various reviews from Goodreads and other SPS. It also contained author blurbs, which cannot show notability since they're 1-2 sentence statements given purely to be added to a book jacket, with the idea that it would raise visibility for the book, the writer, and the author. Used four times in the article.
2. [57] A page about the author's other book. Used to back up a claim in the author's inspiration/about me section. Sort of OR.
3. [58] Same here.
4. [59] Same here.
5. [60] This is used to back up a claim that the author did research. The source notation gives a particular author's name, but it isn't mentioned in the main article anywhere. Why is it necessary to list this if you're not going to mention this author?
6. [61] Used to back up claims of book's selling status, specifically the claim "The book also achieved number one new release status in the USA"
7. [62] Used again, this backs up the claims of good reviews. I should note that some of the reviews mentioned in this blog are the same Twitter links that were already listed as a source.
8. [63] Used again, this time to back up a claim of a specific reviewer, Sam Kiley. The way this is phrased in the article is "Sam Kiley of Sky News described the book as ‘‘addictive’", again giving off the impression that this was an official Sky News review.
9. [64] Used again, to back up the David Boyle quote as if it was an official Guardian review.
10. [65] Used to show more reviews, to back up claims that people are asking for this to be made into a movie.

Agent

1. Agent website. This is used to back up the claims of "rave reviews" on Amazon, not something that Wikipedia particularly cares about.
2. [66]. Used to back up Amazon sales claims.
3. [67]. Used to back up Amazon sales claims, specifically that the book is the best selling spy thriller in the UK.
4. [68]. Used to back up bestseller claims, specifically "The book also achieved number one new release status in the USA". Confirmed by... King's website.

Netgalley

1. [69]. Netgalley is a site where people pay to have their books sent out to reviewers, which are almost solely book bloggers. This specific source is used to cite a book blurb from someone who, if they had reviewed this in a news article, would have been a RS. However this is just a book blurb. At best it's primary, but it can also be seen as a merchant source of a sort. Used three times. This particular instance is used to back up the claim
2. Former BBC News journalist Terry Stiastny says the book "races across Europe" on this independent book review webpage, accessed 28th August 2015. Used to back up this claim, but does not state that it is Netgalley. While Netgalley makes books available for review, they are not a book review outlet themselves. Any reviews or blurbs posted on this website come from the publisher and are not considered to come from Netgalley themselves.

Pembrokian

1. [70] This is an alumni magazine published by the Pembroke College Development Office, covering "all things Pembroke". This shows that King is an alumni of this college. Used once to back up something in the inspiration section. Not unusable as a primary source and one that I'd leave in the article otherwise.

Tom Sanderson

1. [71] Used to back up the claims of a specific person creating the cover. This just goes to the basic website for the author, not to any specific page for the book cover. Not an unreliable source per se, but given that we cannot go to the specific citation, it's not really a good idea to give a link to a website where we'd have to search to prove the claim in the article. Used once.

PR Collective

1. [72]. This is a PR agency that describes itself as "an independent collective of experienced freelancers specialising in PR for the publishing, arts and culture sectors." Used once, to back up the claims of the author comparisons. I do need to note, however, that this source is labeled in link 96 as "Netgalley", which is far from the case. Like other sources, this comparison is made by the publisher.