Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: MSincccc (talk · contribs) 08:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs) 09:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks reviewer! If you could give some attention to my Talk page comments as well I would appreciate that. Czarking0 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think you should double check if MSinccc is eligible for the nom under "significant contributor" Czarking0 (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am. I had even posted on the article's talk page long ago having also pinged the significant contributors. I would like to assist in the article's promotion having been familiar with its contents. Looking forward to your response @FeydHuxtable and @Czarking0. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, as one of the top 10 contributors you're defo eligible to put this up for nomination. I'm expecting to engage more substantially with the review, including with Czarking0's useful comments, starting this weekend. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update 06 October: All going well with the review so far, though I've much source checking to do before I'm confident I've verfied enough to give a green light on source text integrity. If wiki time allows we'll be able to wrap this review up next weekend, but may take a little longer. My final review will contain quite a bit of advise on areas to improve if this were to be taken to FA level, but generally the article seems fine for GA purposes. @ MSincccc one minor exception is needed to meet GA critera 3a (breath of coverage) — mention of Zuck's recent shift away from progressive politics. Sources suggested on talk by editors Helpingtoclarify & JacktheBrown could be used for this. If you could add a sentence or two mentioning this it would be appreaciated, though if you're busy no worries, I'll add myself before closing out the review. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update 13 October: Unless something unexpected comes up, article is likely to be promoted in the next few days. Just want to give it a short time to see if other editors have any concern with the addition just made concerning recent political revelations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary review

Looks great from an initial skim. Per Zuck's status as a tech titan, I plan to take some time on source-text integrity verification. And on reviewing the coverage of Zuck more broadly to confirm the article is NPOV. So it might take a little longer than the standard week before we wrap this up. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments

Not the main reviewer but I have some concerned about the quality that I want to ensure are addressed before GA status. 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think FN9 letsintern is questionable for WP:RS
I think FN10 Child prodigy is perm dead?

Good job on the reviews. I think things have progressed in a good direction. Czarking0 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and also for highlighting issues with the two letintern sources. I was going to replace them with a nice recent mini biography that supports saying it was his Dad that first introduced him to computers, hiring a tutor to give further tuition. But it's by investing.com, which seems to be blacklisted for some reason. Still, I think the Vox source just added has an interesting story about how he created ZuckNet at age ~11, later saw it replaced by AOL's messaging app, but then went on to dwarve AOL with WhatApp & Messenger. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full review

Happy to promote as the article seems passes all GA criterea.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

As promised here are suggestions for possible improvements to elevate the article to FA level. The current article is great in several respects, but if anything a little borderline on a few criterea even at GA level. (At least on 2b , 3a and 4.) I'd expect it might need over 200 hours of work to get this ready for FA. Specific suggestions:

Get a couple of the many book length bio's on Zuck & read them, which should suggest many ways to give the reader a more accurate and comprehensive picture of what Zuck's all about.
Replace the many relatively non ideal sources with betters ones, such as the book bios. (E.g. replace Business insider, Gigaom, Britanica etc.)
Break up the long WP:PROSELINE violating Politics section with sub-headers, per Czarking0's suggestion. Some of the material in 'Politics' could probably be moved into a new L2 'Activism' section. (This and other expansions should also stop the 'Legal trouble' section being so dominant in the ToC)
For breath of coverage, might be good to see more on his key relationships - the good ones, the ones that went bad, and his feud with Musk.
Regarding neutrality, arguably the articles leaning on the negative side - otherwise I'd have wanted to add about the famous "dumb f*cks" remark, and the Zuckerberg Files, as many readers would expect to see those mentioned. Neutrality related improvements could include balancing the "meta proposal" section (which starkly suggests Zuck was blocking efforts to address mental health concerns) with the many MH related initiatives he has supported, and the many decisions he's made in the interests of the public good even when it cost Facebook money. All sorts of material about Zuck's admiral qualities could be added from his book length biographies, e.g. the fact he's generally well liked by actual FB employees for qualities such as being quick to accept he's made mistakes rather than scapegoat subordinates like many bad bosses do. Per the spirit of WP:BLP we should act against the tendency for folk to "always remember the bad things you did and always forget the good things you've done". Just my take though, there's so much that's been said about Zuck in WP:RS that it's not easy to be sure you have a good handle for achieving NPOV. Thanks again for all the work improving the article!FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]