Following this Teahouse conversation and @David notMD's suggestion, consensus was reached that any attempts to rectify the excess cite template should be done through the Talk page. I've been reviewing my previous citation removals reverted by @MrOllie, and have a few I would propose re-removing:
Citation #91 - This is a dead link to a QI Group website. I believe this is a promotional link left over from previous editors working on the page.
Citation #112 - From everything I can see when searching Google, QNET currently operates in Kazakhstan, so this is either inaccurate, or outdated and should probably be updated.
Citations #152 and #153 appear to be a duplicate, which is why I deleted one of them.
Citation #178 - This is associated with a sentence that already has three citations. This citation does not add any new information, and seems to fall under excess cite guidelines.
Given there are 300+ citations on this page, I will probably have other suggestions over time as I make my way through reviewing each one. If there are any concerns with these citations being removed, please share feedback as I am always looking to improve. Thank you. CiKing101 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Additional suggestions 9/26:
Citation #90 - This news article just contains a bunch of promotional material. Does not seems useful.
Citation #70 - This is based on the opening of an investigation into potential Chit Act violations in 2012 regarding how the company is named. It is not relevant to the sentence "India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies." That is not supported by this citation, and thus is not relevant.
Citation #61 - This is just a home link to the Office of Consumer Affairs in South Australia, and a broken one at that. Does not seem to be relevant in any way.
Citation #97 - This article, in relation to a 2010 hearing, is not archived anywhere I can see. Given the sentence it is being used as citation for has four other citations, this seems unnecessary and fits under excess cite guidelines.
Since the first two editors involved in the Teahouse discussion have not responded, tagging @Mike Turnbull in case they would like to review. Thank you. CiKing101 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really interested in this topic, so I'm not going to get into this in detail. However, I have one bit of advice. The quality of some of the sources is very poor and there is a tool which I have activated for my account which helps identify sources for which there is a consensus of unreliablity. See WP:UPSD. A brief look at the current version of the article colour-codes some sources as bad: notably #4, 9, 10, 12, 16, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 52, 57, 121, 134, 136, 138, 150, 163, 193, 194, 205, 276 and 291. Assuming that other sources support the text, I would immediately nuke these ones! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Some of those (for example MoneyLife.in) have been discussed before and found to be reliable for this article. MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)