Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaptainEek (talk · contribs) 05:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I'm CaptainEek and I saw this page in need of a GA review. I note that the nominator User:Money_emoji has by their own admission not been very active in this article, but would like to be involved. Money Emoji: glad to have your involvement and hope ya stick around here on WP. This is my second GA review, so if I make any mistakes let me know! On cursory examination this page seems like it should pass GA, and seems to be in a stable place. It'll take me a day or two to get familiar with the article, check sources, etc. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Issues below fixed
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section says "The conspiracy theory has been extensively discredited", I think a stronger wording than discredited is needed and perhaps a slightly longer discussion on debunking in the lead better reflecting/summarizing the body Fixed-CE Layout/structure makes sense to me M. Flynn section mentions two tweets: one is inline but the other is in blockquote? Pick a style and stick with it (tried to find WP:MOS guideline on it but couldn't, if there is already a MOS guideline for how tweets should be presented: please let me know!) I moved the tweet out of the blockquote, it's more consistent now. Fiction: N/A Lists: As mentioned below, debunking section list may not follow GA guidelines Trimmed it down to make it more concise.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Per MOS:FNNR, Notes should have its own section above references Section removed all togeather, didn't really add anything Saw talk page discussion and agree that was the best course of action
	2b. 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).	Checked every in line source, all were from legit news sources Almost every sentence and paragraph is cited As far as I can see there aren't any counter intuitive or controversial claims Aside from one poorly written sentence about Clinton below, no contentious violations of WP:BLP Not a scientific article, so that point N/A
	2c. it contains no original research.	As far as I could tell every source was a reliable secondary source, and no WikiLeaks emails (primary source and big no-no) were included in the sources or the article
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	CopyVio came back with two violations and it seems that both the first article and the second were in fact plagiarizing Wikipedia and not the other way around. If someone could put the appropriate template about that on talk page that would be great, I forgot what it was called :)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Debunking section may be a bit off topic/into the weeds, especially with NYTimes bullet list I Trimmed the bullet section down, making it focus more on debunking the conspiracy theory.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	As the FAQ's on the talk page say, this article is not intended (nor should it) to lend credence to fringe views. Luckily I agree with that assessment, and think that the article is presented very properly
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars seem to be ongoing, checked talk page archives going back a year and found fairly low traffic, the only discussions seemed to be unrelated to content. Overall the edit traffic is pretty low - just fixing typos, formatting, small things. Not much vandalism either, but probably because its protected.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All were either the Users original work or were licensed via CC 2.0 on flickr. Document from US v. Welch a federal gov't document which means it is not subject to copyright.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pictures of the pizzeria and bookstore are on point and well labeled. I question why it needed a picture of M. Flynn, when it was his son that was forced out because of tweets? And why give Flynn a photo and not say Alex Jones who is mentioned in the section above Removed the photo, It doesn't really add much anyways.
	7. Overall assessment.	Now thats what I call a Good Article!

General Issues/Things to be fixed

"Adl-Tabatabai's story was then spread by pro-Trump websites" Who is adl-tabatabai? This is the first and only time they're mentioned in the article

He was the person that wrote a fake news article that popularized the theory. I replaced with the site that the article was published on, since it was already previously mentioned.

"The post, meanwhile removed by the site," Vague: When was it removed? Also reads weird

Done? GMG ^talk 15:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yusif Lee Jones is mentioned as facing time in prison, but the article is over a year old, that could/should be updated

Yusif pled guilty per the sources, but there was no apparent media coverage of his sentencing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. We can't include the information about sentencing because PRIMARY, but we know he didn't get five years non-the-less. So it'd be sensationalist to include the information now that we know it didn't pan out. GMG ^talk 15:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The debunked section has a list of bullet points debunking individual claims. The bullet list is based solely on one NYTimes article. The NYTimes is very reputable but not sure if we should base a whole section on one article, also some of the bullet points look copied straight out of the NYT article. This also seems like perhaps too much detail/could be better summarized

I cut down on the section and made it focus more on the more relevant allegations.

"Stefanie MacWilliams, contributor for Planet Free Will who wrote an article about Pizzagate, was reported in the Toronto Star as saying, after the Comet Ping Pong shooting, "I really have no regrets and it's honestly really grown our audience."" Too many commas/clauses here please clean up. Also it should clarify what sort of article she wrote, mainly that she was one of the people who spread the original fake news story

Changed to:

"Stefanie MacWilliams, who wrote an article promoting the conspiracy on Planet Free Will, was subsequently reported by the Toronto Star as saying, "I really have no regrets and it's honestly really grown our audience."" 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence should be clarified that it is not true at all and merely a claim to ensure that it does not violate WP:BLP; It is also almost a run on sentence that could use reorganizing/breaking up (that contributes to the word "claim" getting lost in the morass of clauses): "On October 30, 2016, a white supremacist Twitter account that presented itself as belonging to a Jewish lawyer in New York included a display of a claim that the New York City Police Department, which was searching emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop as part of an investigation into his sexting scandals, had discovered the existence of a pedophilia ring linked to members of the Democratic Party."

I am still reviewing this article, but if you are a longtime/frequent editor of this page and are familiar with it you are welcome to respond to me or make the changes I've already outlined. I need to make a very careful read through for wording still, but also need my beauty sleep so I don't turn into Cranky Eek instead of Captain Eek :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 07:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away on a vacation for the past few days. I'll start working on it now that I have the time.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 14:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comments in the table about the lede being too light on the debunking, I think moving the final sentence up to be the second sentence could emphasize the false nature of the CS better. Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good solution, reads much better and it doesn't feel like such an afterthought. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you folks for cooperating and working on this GAR! I should be able to wrap up my review within a day or so, and will then put the review on hold status while we all work out any kinks in the article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 17:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "weird visual artifact" are you seeing? Can you screen shot it? I tried several things and I was unable to produce any combination that makes Template:Multiple image malfunction in any marked way. GMG ^talk 17:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually fixed the issue before I could screenshot a pic, the problem was with my browser cache and not with the multi-image template. Sorry bout that! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess since we're winding down to the last few points here, the use of the document in the article is fairly standard in these type of things where there is a public document of historical significance in play. Basically, it's a prominently placed to give readers an opportunity to review the full primary source. It's more-or-less being added as media, and not necessarily as a picture. So it's not very pretty to look at, but you have to keep in mind that what's being linked to is a .pdf, even though it displays the same type of thumbnail that a photograph would. GMG ^talk 12:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is reasonable, I agree that it can stay. Just looking for some feedback/y'alls opinion on it.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 00:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the intro statement on the tweet from the so called lawyer: I didnt realize it had been workshopped before, in that case it should certainly stay as is (even tho it does read a bit wierd). I will find that archived discussion, and after a final run through this should be ready to pass GA.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the archives including this and this (there are probably more discussions about it that I couldn't find, the archives are expansive) and agree that this is probably the best wording for now. I do think this phrase could certainly be cleaned up given a FA review. However I think it would require a great deal of discussion and headache to refine further, and believe that it is in a good place for GA status. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 02:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GA!

This last round of editing has taken care of all issues I raised during this GA review. Thanks a ton to all the editors who have worked on this page, and a big shout out to the nominator Money_emoji, as well as the editors who helped with this review: MPants_at_work and GreenMeansGo. You are all equally deserving of the credit for getting this to GA status, and are all entitled to add a green plus to your WikiResume.