Talk:Celebrity Number Six/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Tamzin (talk · contribs) & theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) 06:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 13:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• This was an interesting read. It's obviously rather frivolous, but I enjoyed it.
  •  Fixed unfrivolified article :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Reference 10 and 15 are duplicates (both https://www.avclub.com/celebrity-number-six-identified).
  •  Fixed -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• reviewing every photo on Getty Images taken by the photographers of the other seven images – not quite accurate without some kind of temporal qualifier.
  •  Fixed -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Commentators discussed how AI [...] posed the risk of similar mysteries becoming unsolvable in the future due to increasingly plausible deepfakes. – this does not seem like it's saying the same thing the body is.
  • Fixed by clarifying body; see below -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    • It's something of a better match now, but "unsolvable" is much stronger than anything in the body. I might say that future searches could get frustrated or something along those lines. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Reworded further. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Origins and unsuccessful efforts to identify

• even the gender of Celebrity Number Six was not agreed on by users, although female seemed more likely – "seemed more likely"?
  • I don't think "seemed more plausible" is really an improvement—in whose opinion? Was it the generally favoured option by the reddit users? TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think that's about what VF is trying to say- clarified :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• using Pinterest to try to generate similar images – I don't think the meaning of this is clear. I had to read the cited source to understand what they did.
  • both fixed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Identification as Leticia Sardá

• A moderator who had been in conflict with IndigoRoom resigned the same day – I don't get "the same day" from the cited source?
  • Good catch,  Fixed -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure "two days later" is right either, going by the source. How about "within days"? TompaDompa (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
      • The success post was on the 9th, and the resignation was announced on the 11th, but the actual announcement is vaguer about timing than the paraphrase in Watercutter, so upon review I think we actually need to go further than your suggestion, as we can't conclusively say the resignation happened after the post. So I've changed it to "around the same time", which I think is a common-sense interpretation of "'days ago', as of two days later". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sardá's reaction

• She created accounts on a number of social media sites – that's going a bit beyond the cited source's "downloaded, like, 27 apps in the last two days".
  • Supplemented with Pérez Colomé citation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Sardá and Escorsell both spoke highly of the politeness of the redditors they interacted with. – the cited source says "Both Sardá and Escorsell highlight the kindness and politeness of Reddit users when they contacted them." That's a bit too WP:Close paraphrasing for my comfort.
  •  Reworded -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

• either personal projects or on behalf of similar communities – the cited source only seems to mention the latter?
  • Fixed – I think I subconsciously read "pet project" as "individual project". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• "something of a participant" sport – a bit odd not to include "sport" in the quote.
  •  Fixed typo -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• similarly found it significant due to the role of AI, as generative AI became increasingly able to create images that look like real photographs – I don't think the meaning of this is clear.
  • I've elaborated on his meaning, which I think should also resolve the question about lede consistency -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Koebler and Lim compared the lack of archival of the 2006 photo of Sardá to the phenomenon of link rot, both showing how work that seems permanent can in fact be ephemeral. – I don't get this from the cited source, or at least not from the indicated location (26:20)?
  • It's a point they make at some length in the 3ish minutes following that. I could put an end timestamp in too, if you think that's clearer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Ah, I didn't listen for that long. Alright, I have since listened to the end and read the transcript. I still think this is a stretch, or at least not quite right. Koebler brings up link rot in the context of having written articles for Vice that have since become unavailable, but what they connect this to is less the photo than Sardá's lack of an online presence on the whole/as a person. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
      • That's a fair critique. Listening to it again, I'm not sure there's a coherent enough point in the end to be worth paraphrasing it. I've removed the sentence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Emma Keates of The A.V. Club speculated that "As the world moves further away from not just physical media but reality itself, we'll probably see fewer of these types of mysteries continuing to crop up", referencing use of AI-generated images in ads for the film Civil War and in the documentary What Jennifer Did. "For now, though," Keates concludes, such mysteries are "one of the last great bastions of the early days of the internet". – this is both very heavy on the use of direct quotes and rather unclear.
  • Reworded. Now only quoting bits that are pure opinion and thus unsuitable to paraphrase. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   See above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no overt copyvio, but see above about WP:Close paraphrasing and an instance of overusing direct quotes. These concerns have since been satisfactorily addressed.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No obvious omissions.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No obvious neutrality issues.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   There has been substantial editing recently, so I'll wait a few days to make sure it subsides before closing this.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Almost there. And now it is.

Ping Tamzin. TompaDompa (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: thanks for the review! I think we've responded to everything :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: I think that's now everything outstanding dealt with. Thanks for a great review! :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So it is, and having taken a slightly closer look at the edit history I'm also confident that it meets the stability criterion. The article passes. Good job! TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.