Talk:Alan MacMasters hoax/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Bennett1203 (talk · contribs) 03:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 09:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I aim to complete this review within the next few days. Steelkamp (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

Well written

Several problems in this article stem from self references to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid says that you shouldn't have any links that wouldn't make sense on copies of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia article about toasters should be changed to Wikipedia article about toasters, because the page that is linked talks about "toasters", not the "Wikipedia article on toasters". Additionally, pretty much all links to non-mainspace pages should be removed, and if they are absolutely necessary, they should be in an external links section, stylised as an external link as per WP:WAWI. The links to non-mainspace pages that I could find are:

not to use Wikipedia as a source. I would change this to not to use Wikipedia as a source.

blocked. I would change this to blocked.

Archived article and Deletion discussion on Wikipedia. These should be external links in an external links section.

Citogenesis. I would just wholly remove this link or change it to Circular reporting.

~~List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. This should also be in an external links section.~~

Some other things I noticed:

~~The lead needs to be expanded, as the template there says.~~
- It's good that the lead has been expanded, but it needs to be rewritten. The first sentence should introduce what the topic is, and then the following sentences go into more detail from there. Readers shouldn't have to reach the third sentence to work out what the article is about.
Some links are to common terms, such as photography, Britain, newspapers, encyclopedias, government agencies. This should not be linked due to MOS:OVERLINK, as most readers would already know what photography is and its not directly pertinent to the subject.

MacMasters is misspelled as "MacMaster" in some cases.

Since there are many places named Stillwater, it should be changed to Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Does Maddy Kennedy need to be mentioned by name. She is not a public figure, and so I think she does not need to be mentioned by name as per WP:BLPNAME.

...he was nominated to appear on a £50 note at the request of the Bank of England. This kinda implies that the Bank of England did the nominating, but the source says that someone else made the nomination after the Bank of England requested nominations. I think this sentence could be reworded to be clearer.

Charles Strite does not need to be linked in the "See also" section as per MOS:SEEALSO because that page is already linked in the "Discovery" section.

~~I would replace "photoshopped" with "manipulated".~~

Verifiable with no original research

Wikipediocracy is not a reliable source, and that reference seems redundant anyway, so it can just be removed. Maybe the Wikipediocracy article can be included as an external link since it is discussed in this article.
The sources identify Alex as the "mastermind" behind this hoax, not Alan. Therefore, the article should put more emphasis on Alex rather than Alan. For example, the first two paragraphs of the "Origin" section centre on Alan, while I think they should be recentered on Alex. Same goes for the lead.

Broad in its coverage

Sources go into more detail on how Adam discovered the hoax. Sources say that he noticed the image was manipulated and not an old image.
Is there anything that can be said linking this hoax to the broader reliability of Wikipedia?

Neutral

Stable

Illustrated, if possible

~~The licensing for File:Image of the hoax article Alan MacMasters.jpg needs to be changed to Commons:Template:Wikipedia-screenshot, so that the UI and logo are licenced correctly.~~
Why does File:Photoshopped image that was once on the Alan MacMasters Wikipedia page.jpeg need to be a non-free use image? Presumably, it was originally uploaded under a free use licence and the original image can just be undeleted, unless there is something I'm missing?
- Those two licences can't be used together. Either the image is free use, and it can be uploaded to commons under the licence it was originally uploaded as, or it is not free use, and Template:Wikipedia-screenshot should be removed.
This is not required under the GA criteria, but I recommend adding alt text to both images.

General

That's all my review, except for the source review, which I will do after all the above is addressed. Steelkamp (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I made the edit(s) with your suggestions, and I’m ready for it to be sent off to be declared whether or not it is GA acceptable! If so, I would like to thank you, as this is my first GA acceptable article! Bennett1203 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more comments and struck through the comments I consider addressed. Steelkamp (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something about the second bulleted one under the Verifiable with no original research section: both of them are equally as important, and to remaster the article to circulate around Alex would not follow the citations. I followed the citations as strictly as possible. Bennett1203 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, what do you mean by this: "Is there anything that can be said linking this hoax to the broader reliability of Wikipedia". Furthermore, I checked what you meant in the first one under Broad in its coverage, and checked the citations and tried my best to cherry pick all instances of Adam, however there was only a mean count of 4 instances of Adam. I’m very sorry if I misunderstood or didn’t do as what was told. Additionally, I am taking a 3 day holiday for my birthday, so I might not be as active. Bennett1203 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries if you might not be as active. I will have some more to say tomorrow, but for now, I will says that the lead is now too long. The whole article is already quite short so a one paragraph lead is all that is needed. The additions made to the lead don't fix the underlying issue either, which is that the first sentence doesn't introduce the topic. Steelkamp (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I’m probably going to call it here. This is all I can do in my willpower. The GA nomination may come to a rest. I am doing this as means of ensuring I get other personal and Wikipedia business done. Bennett1203 (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Although we didn't get all the way to GA status, this article has definitely improved since I started the review. If you want to improve it further, I recommend making a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, where someone can help improve the article's writing. Steelkamp (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]