Talk:Maintenance Phase

Not quite objective, no?

Might benefit from a more neutral tone, especially given the heft of the subject matter 2600:1017:B802:39:58E5:3C17:D2C5:A725 (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I've updated it with a tag to indicate it reads like an advertisement. I've also updated some of the text to more factually represent the sources and I removed the episode list as I can't seem to find any other podcast that lists episodes on wikipedia. 2A01:C22:AD96:DD00:8852:B55B:A78C:1141 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. All editors should keep this in mind, and I the creator of this page will also keep this in mind.

The episode list has been put back. You do not have to look very hard to find Wikipedia pages for podcasts with episode lists. I found 5 within 60 seconds of looking through the American Podcast category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_podcasts Theladymorgana (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Criticism section

I removed a Criticism section over a year ago due to poor sourcing, most of it sourcing a single blog with little notability. Yesterday the person who added it, @Gsy987, randomly reverted my edit entirely, kept the entire text including the original bad sourcing, then added one more low notability blog. I have once more removed this section because it feels like it’s currently coming from an editor with an agenda who is doing things without following policy. If I could find reliable sources of criticism of the podcast, it would be fine to have such a section, especially since it’s a health-oriented podcast and good criticism is vital. But right now with the incredibly bad sourcing it doesn’t seem right to even have it present. Rebochan (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hard disagree on the sourcing. The three sources all include people with documented medical backgrounds. This includes a source which is considered the preeminent blog on obesity research and another which contains detailed, substantive, and well-sourced critiques on their episodes. Gsy987 (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The main source is explicitly a blog dedicated to debunking the podcast, according to its own about page. That is definitely going to cause issues with good faith sources. I tried to get information on who is writing it but they’re anonymous as far as I can see - so we have to take their word for it that they have the credentials they claim to have. That’s not a valid source for Wikipedia. I’ve checked your other two sources and… they do not say what you claim they say in the section. You claim that Nursing Clio alleges “The podcast has also been critiqued for encouraging distrust of the broader medical community.” This is not the case. The source is a very positive review of the show that, at one point, notes this: “In a moment where distrust of the medical community runs very high, I sometimes think that Gordon and Hobbes do not do enough to underscore that their aim seems to be to hold doctors and researchers accountable for their anti-fat bias, and not to dissuade their listeners from trusting the medical community writ large.” Finally the new source you added doesn’t support the sentence you added it to - it’s a large collection of quotes with nothing to say beyond that the author doesn’t like the tone of the podcast, along with a vague comment about misinformation without actually fact checking it. Which the article is actually criticized for in the comments in fact! Anyway I’m not sure which one of these is the “the preeminent blog on obesity research” because even typing that exact phrase into google didn’t bring up any of the blogs you sourced. Rebochan (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sigh the sourcing really is poor in the Wikipedian sense. It is tough with regards to Spurioussmicolon's work because it is extremely in depth high-quality critique that itself would happily meet all of Wikipedia's standards for sourcing and medical article writing. But if the only source of critique is, as you said, a single blog entirely dedicated to the podcast with a few even less notable blog reviews sprinkled in to create the illusion of variety it reads poorly in the article. Maintenance Phase seems to falling into that place where it's not quite big enough to have drawn varied high profile reception and the article still reads like an ad despite some work already done on this. I have this itching temptation to say, "live by the podcast, die by the podcast" where if the media here is medical podcasting and blogging by people who are not experts in the field then maybe a blog IS notable critique in context. I would suggest putting it in as a single negative reception under Reception but the anonymity of the author makes it hard to pull on WP:MEDRS to define them as an expert making expert commentary, even though that is what it is. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)