Talk:Free Speech Flag/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 07:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The article looks pretty good, although a bit technical for a general audience. I'll take a closer look in the next day or so. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review, Viriditas, I really appreciate it ! — Cirt (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

• The Free Speech Flag was designed by artist John Marcotte, to be used as a symbol to promote freedom of speech.
  • That's a bit clunky. Could you say something like: "The Free Speech Flag is a symbol of personal liberty used to promote the freedom of speech, designed by artist John Marcotte." There's any number of ways to do this. Maybe you could play around with improving it? Viriditas (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Used the wording, as suggested, thanks very much I think it reads better here. :) — Cirt (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Netizens publicized the cryptographic key on the website Digg in response to the actions by the organizations attempting to remove its presence from the Internet
  • Although this is purely personal preference, it helps to write for a general audience; in this case, for people over 60 and potential readers in the future. With that in mind, I recommend changing "the website Digg" to the more descriptive and informative "the news aggregator website Digg". Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Added "news aggregator", definitely agree with this recommendation here, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Background

Resolved

Design and message

Resolved

• Why is the term "public domain" in quotes? Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Removed quotes, good point, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Cirt: I think we are almost done here. Before I pass this article, I would like to see tighter narrative continuity and integration of this section. Currently, this section follows the background as the first section about the artist and flag. As such, the first paragraph should gently lead us into the subject, introducing us to the 5 Ws in relation to the background in the first paragraph. Do you see the problem? Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Viriditas:Thank you very much for your kind words about my Quality improvement efforts. Is not the reader first introduced to the artist and the flag, in the WP:LEAD section, before the Design and message section? — Cirt (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Cirt, please just focus on this section. Right now, the first sentence of the first paragraph says: "John Marcotte created the Free Speech Flag with the hex code format colors: #09F911 #029D74 #E35BD8 #4156C5 #635688." That's not a good introduction for a general reader and it fails to address the 5 Ws off the bat. Remember, the reader just finished reading the background. Now you need to show how the artist and his work fit into this narrative in the first sentence. The lead is a summary of the entire article, of which each section is supposed to stand alone and yet fit into the larger narrative. Pretend you know nothing about the subject (beginner's mind). Now, go back and rewrite, rearrange, or edit for someone who doesn't know who the artist is, what the flag means, or how it connects to the background, with a specific focus on the first paragraph in this section. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, Viriditas, when you explain it that way, your argumentation makes sense. I've rearranged the section to have better flow for the reader. Hopefully this is now satisfactory for you to pass the article. :) — Cirt (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Thank you, that's an improvement and a good start. As a reviewer, when I use the "beginner's mind" technique to read this section, the first thing I ask is, who is John Marcotte and how is he relevant to the dispute I just read in the previous section? Please address that in the first sentence. Narrative continuity is important. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Alright, Viriditas, I've added context in the first sentence, explaining to the reader who Marcotte is. You're totally correct here — the section now has much better flow for the reader, thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Great work! I will try closing out this review in a few hours. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
              • Sounds good, Viriditas, thanks again very much for your helpful input, I really do appreciate it and upon reflection after looking over the article a few more times I think it really is better, thanks to your astute advice. — Cirt (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Impact

Resolved

• The Free Speech Flag entered popular culture by other creative methods Netizens chose to spread knowledge of the HD DVD encryption key.
  • This sentence is a bit off in many ways. In this particular context, the word "netizen" is generally lowercase. Please try to rewrite this sentence for clarity. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Assistant Professor, and Program Director of Visual Art and Technology at the Stevens Institute of Technology, Jeff Thompson was inspired by the Free Speech Flag, and created a sound file of the AACS encryption key as a melody.
  • Try instead: "The Free Speech Flag inspired Jeff Thompson, assistant professor and program director of Visual Art and Technology at the Stevens Institute of Technology, to create a sound file of the AACS encryption key as a melody." Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Copy-edited first sentence, and used wording suggested by GA Reviewer for 2nd sentence. I agree these both look better now, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

See also

Resolved

• Duplicate links per WP:SEEALSO. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Removed duplicate links from See also sect per WP:SEEALSO, thanks for spotting this! — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Are the rest of the current seealso links relevant? Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. Removed one more from See also sect. The rest are now relevant. Thanks, this sect is now a much tighter presentation, and looks much better this way, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Resolved

• I've noticed that the article relies on several self-published sources. What is the justification for this use? Are the authors notable? Is the work ancillary to reliable secondary sources that already duplicate and support it? Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply: I thought in these few instances it would be okay in a limited extent: as one is the author of the flag himself, another from Stevens Institute of Technology, and the other from Yale Law & Technology. — Cirt (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It may also be likely that this work has appeared elsewhere. Any idea if it was published online? Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The flag? Yeah it's been republished and referenced on other websites, during the AACS encryption key controversy, itself, when it was ongoing at the time. I think that was helped by the flag author's wise decision to license it via public domain. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm specifically talking about the content in the self-published sources, not the flag. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, for example, later iterations of his flag influenced others, who created other flags, and that was indeed republished elsewhere. Whether these exact sources were republished elsewhere, yes, for example the text of the author's post about his flag was indeed republished in other websites. — Cirt (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, you don't seem to be following my argument. If it is the case that this content was republished, then is it also likely that it appeared in reliable online sources? Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite sorry, I'm trying to hear you out here. I don't know if that is the case. It's possible, but I haven't come across it yet. However, I strongly feel that if we take each individual source at their face value, they are reliable to support each individual claim that is being made in the article at this point in time. — Cirt (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing what I'm saying. I was talking about the content before, when I asked where I can find it. But now I've been talking about the source itself. There's a distinction here. The content is not in dispute, but rather how to improve the source. I've argued that since the authors are notable, it is likely that this content appears repeated in more reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, while we're discussing I was actually successfully able to find a couple more sources to back it up. Will add those in to the article, momentarily. So thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a couple more references to further back up and support the sources already cited. Thanks very much for the motivation, Viriditas, without your wise recommendation, perhaps I wouldn't have researched and found these additional sources, so thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• The reference to the Ceraso (2009) dissertation (citation 11 at the moment) should not necessarily link directly to the PDF. I would recommend linking to both. In the title link to this and then add a link after the title to the (PDF). Some people, like myself, would prefer not to have a direct download as the only choice, but would instead want to see the document summary page first. As I said, you can provide both. You should also indicate in the citation that this is a dissertation. If it helps, you may be interested in the format used for {{Cite thesis}}. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You have the author of the thesis listed as "Anthony Ceraso", but his first name is "Antonio", not Anthony. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Changed to {{Cite thesis}}, thank you, I didn't know about that particular cite format. You're right, it looks much better cited with this format, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Changed author name to Antonio. Thanks for spotting that! — Cirt (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Because there are multiple popular works with the name of Groundswell, please use the full name of the book: Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Good recommendation, Viriditas, makes the citation easier to verify for others in the future. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Minor issues (listed above).

   All fixed.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   OK.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   OK.

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   OK.

   C. No original research:

   OK.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Major aspects covered, but further expansion is welcome.

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   OK.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   OK.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Active editing, but stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   OK.

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

   OK.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass. Good to go. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)