Talk:John Tye (whistleblower)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Tye (whistleblower)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: L235 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm very glad to begin this review! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I made a few minor stylistic edits. If you're not happy with them, revert and we can discuss, but as it sits right now I'm happy with the prose. A lede longer than two sentences would be nice, but it's fine without that.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I'm a tad concerned with the LinkedIn source – is there any verification on the LinkedIn profile or anything? Am I missing something here? All the LinkedIn source is needed for is the end date of his employment at Avaaz – would you be willing to reword it to avoid the need to mention the end date? I'm also a little confused by the sourcing for Ben Wizner, lead attorney for NSA leaker Edward Snowden, called Tye's actions "entirely admirable," noting that not every whistleblower could be expected to take on the personal risks that Snowden did by revealing classified information. I can't find the "entirely admirable" quote in either of the sources. Finally, I'm a bit concerned about Tye's own attorney, Mark Zaid, a critic of Snowden, acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had likely made it easier for Tye to come forward with his own revelation. – where does the source say that Zaid is a critic of Snowden? To me, it seems that he's just not that equivocal about his opinion on Snowden – as the Vice News source noted, “I think that reasonable people can disagree about how he did what he did,” Tye says.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Excellent job here. The article represents the sources very well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am almost ready to pass this GA – I've made some edits and just need your thoughts on the sourcing things above. Accordingly, I'm placing this GAN on hold for up to 14 days (though I think the issues are resolvable with 10 minutes of work or less if you want to just remove a couple of the statements.) Thanks for your hard work on this article!! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

To editor L235: Thank you so much for reviewing! Here are my responses:

1. Linkedin cite for end year at Avaaz: FWIW, I think the citation passes the five criteria at WP:BLPSELFPUB, and it's not something Tye would have any obvious motive to lie about. Obviously a non-self-published source would be preferable, but I haven't come across one for this particular fact. I'd prefer to keep the date in for completeness.
2. Wizner on Tye: The "entirely admirable" quote is on the second page of the Ars article: [1].
3. Zaid on Snowden: From the Vice article ([2]), nine paragraphs in: "Tye’s Washington, DC–based attorney, Mark Zaid, a fierce critic of Snowden..."

I'm happy to address any other issues you see, and thank you again! —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, this works for me. I missed the second page of the Ars source! I will pass this GAN. @Swpb: Congratulations, and thank you for all your work! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)