Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buffbills7701 (talk · contribs) 21:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: This is my first GA review, so tell me if there's anything wrong. OK! buffbills7701 21:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well-Written

1A

I noticed no spelling or grammar errors on this article.

1B

It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, fiction, and list incorporation, but it doesn't fully get past the words to watch section. I would recommend to switch out the words supporters and critics in the sentence "Supporters have called the group "freedom fighters" and digital Robin Hoods while critics have described them as "a cyber lynch-mob" or "cyber terrorists" for something else, making it less weasel-like.

I'm open to rewording here, but you may have to help me out with what you're picturing instead. Usually "weasel words" suggest a source is being misrepresented, but in this case the sources flat-out say that "some" or "supporters" call the group "freedom fighters" and "digital Robin Hoods"; I felt it was important that our article reflect the range of opinions the same way as the sources. The footnotes are provided for readers to evaluate. I did find this part difficult to write, however, and would welcome alternative suggestions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thought that the source was being misrepresented, so I'll give it the plus here. buffbills7701 00:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Factually Accurate and Verifiable

2A

Contains a list of all references in accordance of the layout guideline.

2B

Everything is in place except for the date it was founded, it says 2003 on the infobox, and 2004 on the History. Neither one has a source, and of course, they contradict themselves. If you can solve this, you will get a plus from me.

Thanks, good catch on the infobox. I've replaced this with "c. 2004", which is sourced by fn #25. Like everything with Anonymous, this is hard to pin down in traditional terms; if you have alternative suggestions, just let me know. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, that has been fixed. buffbills7701 00:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

2C

I can find no original research on this page.

Broad in its Coverage

3A

This article addresses all of the main aspects.

3B

While the article is large, it has no trivia or unnecessary detail.

Neutral

Clearly shows both sides of Anonymous, both good and bad.

Stable

After looking at the history, this page has no recent edit wars.

Illustrated

6A

All of the pictures have a copyright status, or have fair-use rationals for non-free content.

6B

All pictures are relevant, and have reasonable captions.

Notes:

• "A website associated with the group describes it as "an internet gathering" with "a very loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives". Do you happen to know what website that is?
  • According to the source, it's a site called http://anonanalytics.com/, no longer functioning. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• "4chan readers invaded the Finnish social networking site Habbo Hotel with identical avatars; the avatars blocked regular Habbo members from accessing the hotel's pool..." Is Habbo Hotel a social networking site, or a hotel?
  • Networking site. Perhaps "the hotel's digital pool" would clear up any confusion here?-- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That would help me a lot.

• This won't effect much, but do you know "Topiary"'s real name?
  • Jake Davis. I considered adding his real name, but seemed like extraneous detail to the story. Would you like me to add this as an explanatory footnote maybe? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure! It helps people like me. buffbills7701

• I noticed that you repeated these two statements: "Supporters have called the group "freedom fighters" and digital Robin Hoods while critics have described them as "a cyber lynch-mob" or "cyber terrorists". In 2012, Time called Anonymous one of the "100 most influential people" in the world.", and "A website associated with the group describes it as "an internet gathering" with "a very loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives". Is that on purpose, or just an accident?
  • On purpose--these seemed like good sentences to use in the article summary in the lead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• A lot of the pictures appear in the beginning of the article. Could you spread out the pictures a bit more?
  • The problem I found was properly matching pictures to events. I didn't have any free images of LulzSec members, for example, while I feel like both of the Project Chanology images really need to be in that section. Do you have any suggestions for rearranging? I'm certainly open to it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really, I just noticed that the pictures weren't very balanced.

Final Verdict

Pass or Fail: I have decided to put the article on hold for a week. There is a good chance I will accept it, although if the nominator is active and doesn't fix the problems, I will be forced to decline. buffbills7701 22:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, BuffBills--I particularly appreciate your taking this on as your first GA review. Little Miss Khazar is teething tonight and pretty angry about it, so I'll be off and on, but should address all your concerns in the next 24 hours or so. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I actually got through all of it there--easier than I expected. Let me know what you think of these responses; I'll be happy to discuss further or make additional changes as you consider necessary. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

After Khazar did what I requested, I have decided to pass this article. Congrats! buffbills7701 00:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and for the suggestions, much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)