Talk:Trichinopoly cigar

What the heck?

There is so much wrong with this article that it's hard to know where to start. I guess that 12 paragraphs in a row without a single reference is a good place to start. Then the complete lack of organization: no headings are included for most of the article, the material is not presented in any usual order, and the information one would expect to find is not there. The second word contains a typo (if the alias is "trichies" then presumably we're talking about "cigars" rather than "cigar"), and no information about dates of manufacture, entities that performed the manfacture, or indeed how you define a cigar as a trichinopoly is included. (Is it a trichinopoly simply because the tobacco is grown in a certain place, something like vidalia onions, or does it have to be manufactured in a particular town, or is it a brand name for some manufacturer, or is it a sort of generic term? Don't go to this article to find out.) What this article does include appears to be someone's badly written short story. After a little bit of somewhat-relevant information, out of the blue, the article states, "It all started when..." What started when? What is this about? And if the cigars were used in Victorian times (i.e the 19th century), how can anything at all relevant be started in the 1960s?

Following the story, there is some generic information about some other sorts of cigars, or maybe about all cigars, or who knows? Still no references, no headings, and bad organization.

Then you get to the end, and realize that the reason for no references earlier in the article is that the section was copied almost verbatim from somewhere else. The only thing that was left out of the Wikipedia article from the source article was the part where the source article stated that the information was based on a story told the author by his father. Since when is that up to the standard of Wikipedia? There isn't anything wrong with it in the source article (except that the article is badly written), but this is suppsed to be a type of encyclopedia, not a type of opinion page. Then you go to the second reference (which, BTW, is copyrighted), and there is some of the same text again, showing that one of the sources has plagiarized the other. Neither source appears to me to be particularly reliable (from a scholarly standpoint), and neither provides any scholarly references.

This is the first article I have seen on Wikipedia that I have thought would be better off deleted then left how it is. I can't fix it, because I know nothing about the subject--that is what I was looking it up for. And you're not supposed to gut articles without putting something on the Talk page, so I won't.  :) But if it were up to me, I'd delete all but the first two sentences and the section on references in cinema and literature. FideliaE (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@FideliaE: Good eye. I've gone ahead and deleted everything that's questionably sourced / verbatim copied / not wiki-notable. RexSueciae (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)