Talk:Salarian

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 4 June 2025 by reviewer HilssaMansen19 (talk · contribs).

Science Fiction

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Video games: Characters Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Video game characters task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Some issues with the article's referencing

I looked through the referencing, and saw there are a lot of self-published sources in here, some blogs for example. What makes them reliable opinions for this purpose, in your view? Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for taking your time to read through my article! I vastly appreciate that. Take into account that this is my first ever article, so I may not have used those sources accordingly and they may need to be removed.

There’s mentions to BioWare’s own in-game codex, which in most if not all cases have been complemented with other independent sources about the topic. I used them because they are authoritative, high-quality and accurate, thus making them reliable in my view following acceptable use 3: “A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself”. For the lystheni section, I added a youtube clip which shows some deleted dialogue to prove its existence and a reference to the book Mass Effect: Ascension, also following acceptable use 3 and complementing with third-party sources.

As far as I’m aware there are only 2 self-published blogs present here, so I’m going to talk about those two. If there were more, feel free to ask specifically about them (though I may have used them without knowing they were blogs). The first one (by Jack Fisher), I had my doubts whether to include it or not, so I wouldn’t be against its removal. I ended up using it because it’s published, independent of the subject, appropriate for the material in question and offers a valuable comparison within the context of alien first contact. However, it may have been used to advertise his own products. He also published on other third-party sources, such as PopMatters, though now not on the relevant field, so that’s mostly why I doubted. I believe that the second one (by Jorge Albor of ExperiencePoints) is a good source for the matter in question, offering some valuable comparisons to the work of Oppenheimer and Robert Sapolsky, citing other articles when necessary. It’s published and I believe it’s independent of the subject (the author has no association with BioWare), appropriate for the material in question, is well-informed and accurate (citing sources when relevant). The author, Jorge Albor, has also written about the field for reliable third-party media, such as PopMatters or Game Developer (formerly Gamasutra), so I consider it acceptable under use 2 “The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims".

Once again this reasons may not be enough (especially for the article by Jack Fisher) and I’m still a rookie editor, so feel free to remove them or replace them if you believe they’re not reliable. Thank you for your time. Oreun (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw Jack Fisher, and I do feel that one's particularly questionable and may be worth trying to replace. Selfpub sources are...tricky. I've only used them a few times overall, and even then one I was absolutely certain the person was someone that could be called an expert I was citing them for. That said too you should be wary about ever using selfpub's really more than once, and even then not using them to cite facts in an article; due to the lack of editorial oversight, they should be treated as just their own opinion, similar to how WP:VG/S handles folks like James Stephanie Sterling.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed re-check

Hi @Oreun, I hope you are doing well. Can you try and check the article one more time? If there is nothing to edit, kindly add a comment in AfD discussion stating that. Before you do that, check the following -

this revision, check if there are repetitions of a person's post, full name again and edit them
Re-check the references and remove any minor ones as rest are sufficient
Check whether you have added those references mentioned in the AfD discussion and if not, add them
Since you are more detailed with the subject, do a recheck once again and then, comment in the AfD as stated above. It may seem too much but we must work on the article per the policies and make it free of any future nominations! Make it a best version of what we can!

If you have any doubts or queries, feel free to reach out! Happy editing! HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 21:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your edits summaries. Since you have cited the original source stating that nouns must be begin with small letters, that serves as an exception. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 21:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it as soon as possible. Thank you for your help with the article! :) Oreun (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HilssaMansen19, I hope you're doing well. I've been working on the article for the last couple of days as you mentioned both here and my talk page. Is there anything else you believe could be removed/fixed? If there's nothing else to change, I'll add the comment in AfD discussion as you mentioned. And about the comment, should I add it as Comment or as Keep?

The only source from the AfD discussion I haven't added is the one suggested by Jclemens, because I don't have access to it. Once again thank you for your help with the article! Oreun (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oreun,

Just check for any blogs if they are not removed yet. It seems well attributed and fine to me. As for comment or keep, write it as Comment as you are the original author. Good efforts! Happy editing! HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 15:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]