Talk:QAnon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 23:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh boy, this is gonna be interesting. I'll be the sacrificial lamb for this GAN. Fair warning, due to the controversial nature of this article, it will likely be a lengthy review, and don't be surprised if I request a second or third opinion just to double-check our work. A cursory glance tells me the page is relatively stable (surprisingly) but I'll give it a more comprehensive look within the next few days. Etriusus 23:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• Right off the bat, the lead is waaayyyyy too short. This is QAnon, a very high-profile group. There's very little mention of its history, how it began, or anything notable. At the very least, the background and QAnon's impact should be covered. 2 sentances isn't enough. See MOS:LEAD
• The first sentence is run on, needs to be chopped up.

Beliefs

• Why is this before the Origin section? It flows strangely. Move it further down.
• "on the cabal" This is part of the confusion on the article's flow, here we reference the cabal before establishing what it is. I get that it's referenced in the lead but the lead is a summary, not a location for establishing information, per se.
• baselessly puffery, maybe use the term "unsubstantiated" or "allegedly". Baselessly is debatable here, but I'm playing it safe.
• preventing Ce this to: "and to prevent"
• Some of QAnon's claims have been described as antisemitic or rooted in antisemitic tropes This is established later in the article and doesn't really fit with the rest of

the prose. Either move it to a more logical location or cut it.

• the conspiracy theory began with an October 2017 Why are we dipping into the origin? The beliefs section keeps bouncing between beliefs and the history of the organization. Ideally, a good chunk of this needs to be merged with the the Origin section.

---

Comments

@Etriusus: I took a careful look at history. The article was stable, but it was significantly destabilized with this no-summary edit (diff, January 22, 2022) which moved 90% of the lead to the body under h2 "Beliefs". Naming it "Beliefs" did not correspond sufficiently to the varied nature of the content. Also, there had already been a section title "Conspiracy claims" (i.e. beliefs) and the background, origin an spread content was also mostly about the beliefs – the lead content sectioned as "Beliefs" contained a summary thereof. That put the summary of the body in the body, leading to repetition and general confusion it seems.

Not a good edit. Not discussed, and it's as if it went unnoticed. GA should pause for a day or so until it can be seen if the lead should/can be restored and if subsequent edits can be saved. The lead had problems but it was much easier to trim it, than it is now to write a whole new lead (also likely leading to threefold repetition, which is difficult to assess on the go in a long article such as this). tw^sabin 00:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: I appreciate the look into the revisions. I figured that there was going to be something (although I was expecting the pending changes log to be a mess). The lead and belief sections were already raising red flags, and I'm glad there's an explanation that doesn't require rewriting the page. I'll put the review on ice until AFreshStart has an opportunity to fix it. I do however, feel like this GAN will be a It takes a village to raise a child sort of situation. Etriusus 01:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus: I am repairing the article by manually remaking all of the edits (copy pasting from diffs) after the damaging edit. I will be done soon but I will stop at edits which are affected by the confusion (removing repetition which won't be repetition once the lead is restored). tw^sabin 01:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh thanks, that does make a lot of sense! I also wondered why there were effectively two sections on beliefs (Conspiracy claims and Beliefs). Sorry if my edits complicated anything by moving the section. –AFreshStart (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus and AFreshStart: Done – Special:Diff/1070353124. Please see the edit summary. The edits after this revision were not reimplemented. Thank you for your understanding AFreshStart. I will proceed to see what can be salvaged, and perhaps you could too. tw^sabin 01:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: Greatly appreciated. Now we finally have a lead section to properly review. I'll still suspend the review until all of AFreshStart's revisions can be parsed out and reimplemented.

@AFreshStart:, I am certain that twsabin has already made great progress on this. Let me know if you need any additional help with the restoration and please ping me when the page has been properly restored and I can resume the GA review. On another note, that while technically having citations in the lead is generally frowned upon, WP:CITELEAD doesn't explicitly forbade them in controversial subjects. I'll leave that up for an open discussion for the time being. Etriusus 02:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't feel confident making any further restorations myself. Luckily, I don't think that it's a serious issue. Maybe a word here and there. Instead I made edits of my own, removing a little content from the lead, and also removed the cleanup tag (not useful; yes everyone can see that the lead is long). tw^sabin 02:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: continue the review

Based on everything written above, I think that the GA review can proceed (from scratch I guess [sad to see time was wasted {mine included}]) as if it had been nominated at this state. tw^sabin 02:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Fear not for your work has not gone unnoticed. @AFreshStart: is this alright with you? Etriusus 02:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This is totally fine by me 🙂👍 –AFreshStart (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Restarting GAN With that crisis averted, there appears to be a consensus to resume the review. Please disregard my previous critiques, I'll get a fresh set out within the next few days. Etriusus 21:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

@AFreshStart: What a legend! I will add comments here and there when possible, and hopefully don't get mad in the process :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by twsabin (post-restart)

Add (/restore) a fifth paragraph to the lead which summarizes the incidents section. One sentence may be enough. A five-paragraph lead (but not six-paragraph, which was the starting state) is also MOS compliant. This is a complex, multifaceted, topic. An average person has difficulty grappling with this topic (personal opinion, from personal experience). A connection to concrete events in recent memory is helpful. tw^sabin 19:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have added another paragraph, I hope it's readable and understandable. AFreshStart (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Psychloppos

I took the liberty of making some of the changes suggested by Etriusus :

I replaced "nefarious plot" with "worldwide cabal" (indeed, if it involves kidnapping and raping children, it is nefarious by implication so the adjective was unnecessary), removed "cool" and "essentially", replaced "8chan (later 8 kun)" by "8chan/8kun" and "Belief in QAnon theories" by "QAnon beliefs".

As for "ostensibly", it was I who wrote that word, precisely because I wished to avoid another occurence of "purportedly" (which is used a lot in the article). Do as you please if it's too "big" a word.

In 'appealing possibility', maybe we could replace 'appealing' with 'rewarding' ? Psychloppos (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I moved your comment here because this is the space for comments. The bottom portion is probably where the reviewer will make some significant comments later on such as passing/failing the GAN, but it would be even better if you could integrate your comments in the working area where suggestions are being made, including striking resolved items. tw^sabin 17:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos:, while I agree that 'ostensibly' is grammatically correct, it is a more technical word. This doesn't disqualify the article for GAN per se, but for readability the article, I recommended the change. In the end, I know I'm being a tad bit harsher than usual for this GA review but its just because of the controversial nature. Consider it my way of trying to idiotproof this page, but we can discuss it if you think it should be changed back. Thanks for helping with the GAN btw, you've been very busy with the copy editing and its very much appreciated. Etriusus 02:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Etriusus

@Psychloppos:, @AFreshStart:, and @Twsabin:. Excellent work to everyone involved. I will be giving the article one final pass before signing off and passing the GA review. I didn't see anything glaring yesterday but I'm going to double-check. This has been hard-fought, and I want to commend the hard work everyone has put into this GA review.

---

Review

Please don't place general comments in this section, place them above unless they are meant for article improvement

Refs

• Can you check the 3 Salon sources, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources these sources aren't super reliable and should mainly be used for attributed quotes.  Done (diffs): Now only used for direct quotes from individuals, and attributed opinion by Matthew Rozsa, the writer of the piece. The page numbers for the Mike Rothschild book are based off my e-book version, which may be different from the printed version. —AFreshStart (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Also check the Daily Beast Sources and the Buzzfeed Sources, not as bad per se, but are pushing it a bit.  Done (diff)

• Either a justification for reliability or replacement is necessary.

*Important Clarification: Some of these are attributed quotes but others are in line citations. The quotes are fine and can remain as is.

 Done Removed unnecessary links to Daily Beast and BuzzFeed. Daily Beast refs that I think are noteworthy (i.e. saying that the house resolution has no force of law, or that are direct quotes from individuals) have been attributed. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Images

• Is there anything more for the image "A QAnon flag based on the flag of the United States". The supposed author in the sourced article denies that it is QAnon related. I also cannot confirm its copyright status as 4.0 cc, the commons page implies 'own work' by the uploader but this contradicts the image's caption. Please point me in the direction of the original copyright info. Maybe a fair use rationale is more appropriate.
• All other images look good.

I have raised the issue at Commons, and can remove the image from the article in the meantime. I personally think deletion is better than fair use rationale – there is an abundance of Q-related imagery in this article, and I don't think this adds much to it. But I will admit that image copyright is not my forte. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw the thread on the commons. I agree that it probably doesn't meet the threshold of originality. If that is the case, I am fine with leaving the image on the page. I assume that it is used by QAnon, even if the original creator make up some other rational. Etriusus 03:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. Striking through all this and marking as  Done – think that is everything now, unless I have missed something... —AFreshStart (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio

• an Earwig check didn't come up with anything that wasn't a quote. My computer practically melted its hard drive trying to check that much content.

Intro

• So, now the lead has the opposite problem. There's way too much chaff that needs to be cut out. Generally speaking MOS:LEAD prefers the lead to be 4 paragraphs at most. I get this is a complex, multifaceted issue but the lead does get into some very specific information that is unnecessary.

• Examples include: Bill Mitchell, White Squall, etc. I see you're building a timeline but a much simpler approach should be taken.
• The Twitter and Facebook segments can also be shortened substantially

• First sentence is run on and needs to be chopped up.
• "baselessly" puffery, reword to unsubstantiated or something similar
• 'JAnon' is mentioned once then never again, needs to be in the article's body.
• Some of QAnon's claims..., either specify the claims or reword. The sentence is too vague.
• (rebranded to 8kun in 2019) unnecessary, cut.
• "exhorted" is this the correct usage of the word?
• So MOS:LEAD leaves the citations in the intro up to a case by case basis, I am okay with leaving the article as is but I'm just making sure you're okay with this.
• Remove excessive 8chan links

 Done, the lead is now down to 4 paragraphs and I think it covers all the basics. There was a lot of information that needed including in the main text, which I did. Removed the Bill Mitchell bit totally as it didn't seem too relevant; if editors think this belongs in the article, happy to have it re-added in main text. Removed about the reaction to Biden winning the election as too recentist. Hopefully editors will agree that the article is in a much better place right now! —AFreshStart (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Background

• material which said it was run by a Jewish New York Specify what 'it' is.
• On October 30, 2016, Sentence as a whole is clunky, run on, and I feel like there's an 'and' missing somewhere. Needs rework.
• John Podesta's Who? This comes from nowhere.
• The Pizzagate section isn't a very good summary of events and feels disjoined. I'm not expecting an essay, just a concise (1-2 paragraph breakdown). The newspaper articles afterwards also don't seem to follow super well and come across as trivial info.

• Additionally, how is this relevant to QAnon? It somewhat touched upon in 'Influence of 4chan culture' but this needs to be more explicit.
• Move Influence of 4chan culture to before Anons.

 Done – a lot of this didn't seem relevant because the Pizzagate section was excerpted from the "Genesis" section of the Pizzagate article (also why it didn't mention the relation to QAnon as this was pre-Q). Completely rewrote the section so that it makes more sense in relation to the topic; apologies if this means that you will have to re-review this section again. —AFreshStart (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Reviewed, it looks substantially better Etriusus 22:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• link /pol/

Origin

• as "the calm before the storm" repetitive, needs rewording
• The three then created... This is a bit run-on, also mention the community if its relevent
• "Its guests.." reword to 'the channel's guests'
• "a Trump campaign publicist" who? are they noteworthy?
• "and later a revived 8chan" grammar (and later return to a revived...) Just a suggestion, the sentence reads a bit weird but I can't tell if it's due to its frankly wild subject matter or if there's a grammatical error.
• "Television host Sean Hannity..." I'm losing tract of the timeline a bit. Was Hannity the first to make it mainstream?
• marked the conspiracy theory's entry into the mainstream. This contradicts the first sentence in the paragraph.
• " least one ministry combining " who? This is a bit vague.
• mirrored increasing radicalization mirrored or coincided with? If it is mirrored reword to "has mirrored..".
• link pseudonymous
• "China had surpassed Russia" when did they surpass? it implies that Russia used to be ahead.
• Many Canadians have also propagated QAnon is there anything more to say on this?
• International following- what did I just read? A Delaware LLC? I am utterly lost for words.
• According to an investigation run on sentance
• link 'Public Religion Research Institute' and 'Interfaith Youth Core'

 Done, though I'm not sure how to clarify the Delaware LLC thing – they literally think that. As per the source: the Soviet Citizens ... believe that the Russian Federation is not a sovereign state, but a Delaware-registered offshore company controlled by global elites that illegally occupies the rightful territory of the Soviet Union. Just as the Reichsbürger groups think modern Germany is a corporation owned by the Allies of WWII. I can remove the Delaware bit as it's not that relevant really, but I'm not really sure how I can clarify something that makes no sense in the first place, sorry. Your reaction (below) is probably the same as mine right now... —AFreshStart (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No, no, its perfectly fine to leave the LLC thing in. I was commenting on the frankly insane subject matter. The prose is well done. I had to comment on that, I've seen some weird things on wikipedia but learning about the QAnon conspiracy is an absolute Rabbit Hole. Etriusus 01:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh definitely. Russia-is-really-a-Delaware-LLC is bizarre even by QAnon standards. And that's saying something. I really appreciate you having the courage to go through this GA review, definitely not run-of-the-mill stuff and I know some editors wouldn't touch this page with a 10-foot pole. —AFreshStart (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Claims

• QAnon "drops" are often cryptic, vague, and impossible to verify The origin section makes an allusion to what a drop is but it's not specifically defined.

  This would be great info in the intro

• ' and debunkers' This might be a POV issue/notability issue. Journalists debunking it is enough.
• "It is disseminated" The drops? QAnon as a whole? clarify
• "messiah sent by God" Why? Just why? (Just a comment on my end, nothing to edit)
• the essence of the conspiracy 'has said' or 'has described' the essence..., reword
• " used the pandemic" reword to "have used"
• "MMS, or Miracle Mineral Solution" are they connected with ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine sulfate at all?
• I'd recommend moving the evolution of Q's claims to before the failed predictions subsection.
• "allegedly coded messages." Missing a source
• 'Data from the...' Is this necessary info?
• Does the 'save the children' subsection belong here? It feels tangentially related, consider merging it with the pizza gate section.

 Done – specified that a Q drop is just a post on 4chan, later 8chan/8kun, and added this to lead. I was unsure about "debunkers" and have changed it, although the source does use the term. Rmv "it is disseminated" – I haven't had a chance to read the whole paper but I've reworded that to reflect the source.

MMS is unrelated to ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine – it's basically bleach (chlorine dioxide). Though there are a lot of Q-quacks selling all of these as "cures" for just about anything (according to Miracle Mineral Supplement's WP article, it claims to cure HIV, malaria, all forms of flu and hepatitis, colds, autism, acne, and cancer. And all this is BC [before COVID]). Just your typical bleach panacea, available in oral or enema form. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Question: I significantly restructured this section, instigated by this cleanup tag. The actual content changes were cosmetic adjustments, needed to reorder things basically. Further review needed here? tw^sabin 22:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Identity of Q

• ' wrote Q's posts during different periods' what time period?
• Q did not have another means of communication reword- Q did not have any other known (or verified) means of communication
• This apparent conflict of interest, What conflict of interest? Sentance is run on and confusing, needs to be rewritten
• 'who stated on camera, ' use a blockquote
• ' similar conspiratorial movement ' what movement?

 Done The source doesn't specify which time period, so I added the quote that Q's "distinct signatures clearly correspond to separate periods in time and different online forums" (which is from the report). Hope this is okay. Re-written about the "conflict of interest", tried to clarify the situation, and added quotes from Brennan. Removed the part about a "similar conspiratorial movement" – this seemed to be the author's opinion on media owned by Viktor Medvedchuk promoting conspiracy theories. But his article doesn't mention this. And it's unclear how this is a "movement". —AFreshStart (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Analysis

• not only the end of the world... This reads like a quote but its not in quotations. May need rewording or attribution
• link feeling thermometer
• ' A September 2020 Pew... ' Reads weird, just say 'In Sep. 2020, a Pew..."
• although anti-Semitic references appeared in the first few tweets repetitive info, questionably NPOV

Done —AFreshStart (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Appeal

• Part of its appeal is its game-like quality, Is there an authority on this? Reads like OR.
• Travis View, a researcher who studies QAnon... This is a great first sentence for the paragraph, move it upfront.
• Some QAnon believers realize that they have been isolated from loved ones, and suffer loneliness. This leads some to abandon the beliefs, but for others reinforces the benefits of belonging to the cult This is a POV nightmare, needs serious rewording.
• ' societal uncertainty' specify what uncertainty is specific to QAnon
• 'between them a cover.; reword
• Such a response to a failed prophecy.. Reads like OR, who said this? I assume the psychologist later mentioned
• This phenomenon is being seen among some QAnon believers. unnecessary, already implied
• 'View echoes the concern' State his full name, there are a lot of names and it can get confusing

• Also, check the tense in this paragraph. It is in the present tense and should be in past

• 'under Trump's protection.' citation missing

 Done–AFreshStart (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Incidents

• 'Near Philadelphia's Convention Center,' and 'Bumper stickers' This is questionably notable. Condense or cut.
• 'and Trump tweeted about it' reword to be encyclopedic
• ' most secure in American history' put the quote if you have it
• The sovereign citizen movement developed this claim was it just the sovereign citizens? Merge this with the preceding sentence
• put U.S. Capitol attack before Lin wood

 Done —AFreshStart (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Reactions

• 'anti-abortion group' Per WP:COMMONNAME, change to pro life  Not done: See revert by CollectiveSolidarity. While "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are the common names, Wikipedia prefers to use "anti-abortion" and "abortion-rights movements" respectively (see their talk pages). —AFreshStart (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Rabochaya Gazeta" Is there an English link?
• ' /r/The Donald subreddit' is no longer active, it was shut down after Jan 6th, making mention here or earlier wouldn't be a bad idea
• ' According to the memo.." blockquote here
• 'An underreported QAnon-related...' Run-on sentences
• another factor driving the intensity of this threat I feel like this warrants a bt more explanation
• At a Trump reelection rally Does this qualify as FBI/terrorism? It may be in the wrong subsection
• Republican politicians and organizations- wayyyy too much detail here. This can likely be pared down to 2-3 paragraphs.
• Trump and connected individuals- no need to go into excruciating detail about every tweet.

• This is probably a better place for Lin Wood and Sidney Powell

• He told a reporter... Unnecessary, cut sentence
• Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani... Did he play any larger role in this?
• 'Suggestions for making progress..." run on sentance
• But merchandise relating to QAnon combine this with the previous Etsy sentance. It strangely reads passive-aggressively as is.

 Done, although I have not used the English link for Rabochaya Gazeta as enwiki page is a different newspaper by the same name. But tried to link better using interlanguage links. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Review Pt 2

Here are my notes now that the article has been given its first pass, all in all, excellent work to everyone involved in c/e and refining the page substantially. I didn't know 'anti-abortion' was an exception to WP:COMMONNAME it can remain as is then. I plan to get these out within the next day or so, its already apparent this pass will be a lot faster than the last one. Etriusus 23:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Intro

• Move the infobox to the top, the image above the infobox feels crowded. The image can be moved more towards the body of the article.

Besides that minor edit, this section is impressively done.

I did the other thing which is moving the sidebar to the body based on a rationale that it didn't really serve it's real purpose as a navigational aid at the top (only directs to Capitol attack-related topics but not to QAnon-related topics such as the actual QAnon daughter articles; there are a few). Hope that's fine. tw^sabin 01:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. Much better than having a hanging info box. Etriusus 06:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Background

• 'Q referred...' reword, 'Q has referred to..."
• The compound has become.. Be a bit clearer that this is the origin of the adrenochrome elixir idea.  Done

• "and "adrenochrome harvest" by murdering a" this is also mentioned later on the in article and rexplained. Needs clean-up as a whole

 Not done – I removed this, but my removal was manually undone by Psychloppos. I have to say I agree with Psychloppos' reasoning – the exact nature of the alleged "harvesting" is particularly gruesome and unique within this particular conspiracy theory, so I think it ought to be mentioned. −AFreshStart (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is my subsequent take at this review suggestion: Special:Diff/1072465284. It consists of moving this content from 'Background'—as it is not background (it turned out that, despite 'Background' being a reasonably well-written section, much of the content in it was not chronologically in the background, i.e. preceding QAnon)—to 'Claims'. I am now pretty convinced that this makes both the 'Background' and 'Claims' better (more of what they should be about), but the adrenochrome detail in the 'Origin and spread' h2 may be a little too much, when the main place to cover this should be 'Claims'. However, I think that this is probably good enough. Moving a little more from Origin and spread to Claims would be a technicality. I'd support marking this as done. tw^sabin 22:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Marked as  Done. —AFreshStart (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see this was resolved. I didn't mean for the entire section to be cut out. I meant that the topic was covered twice without any additional benefit to the article. Combining these elements together and cutting down on repetitive info is what I was getting at, sorry if I was unclear. Etriusus 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: I'm glad that you understood my reasoning. The idea of a gang of perverts murdering children for a substance contained in their blood is revolting per se and would normally not need to be explained twice. But the particular act contained in this alleged video was so cartoonishly gruesome and evil (involving a major political figure, no less) that it has to be included here (just as it is included in the Pizzagate page). Not only is this outlandish, even by QAnon standards : we have to keep in mind that it is an early QAnon rumor (the theory was only a few months old when this surfaced) which implies that instead of discrediting QAnon early on, it actually helped them gain traction. This means that this is exactly the kind of things that the QAnon crowd (at least the hardcore followers) will believe and appreciate. It makes the inclusion of this info all the more necessary. Psychloppos (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'someone' please specify who. Is this portion necessary? The current prose technically doesn't link blood libel and qanon.

Done. This was substantially reworked by the content being integrated with the Antisemitism section, and the inadequate "someone" wording was removed. The reference was reused (Bloom & Moskalenko 2021, pp. 30–31, Chapt. 1.). tw^sabin 20:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think Blood libel and Satanic ritual abuse require its own sections. Perhaps just making mention in the antisemitic and pizza gate (respectively) sections would suffice.

Done. tw^sabin 20:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Origin

• 'other outlandish, sometimes gruesome rumors' WP:Puffery

Done. tw^sabin 20:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'nefarious' puffery

Claims

• the format here is very messy, needs clean-up

There were changes here. I think it's okay now (per MOS:EMBED). Please un-resolve this item if you still think it's messy tw^sabin 19:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• '(later 8kun).' repeat info
• 'world is essentially controlled' cut the word 'essential'
• As seen by QAnon followers.... run on sentance
• Belief in QAnon theories.. CE this sentance

Analysis

• MOS:SANDWICH

• How necessary are both pics to the overall article?

Done: Special:Diff/1072847141 (see summary). tw^sabin 19:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'ostensibly' a bit of a big word, proportedly works fine

I see what you did there Etriusus 04:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'cool' puffery
• is there a reason Antisemitism is under a different subheader format?

Yes, antisemitism is a h4 subsection of the h3 Derivative and recurring elements, it being one of those elements. tw^sabin 17:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, thx Etriusus 20:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'and QAnon researchers' experts on qanon or member of qanon who do research?
• 'the appealing possibility' puffery, cut appealing
• QAnon follower Liz Crokin... run on sentance

Done. Special:Diff/1072856049 tw^sabin 20:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Some Q followers became... Notable info? If yes, reword, it reads too casual.

Done – Special:Diff/1072870523. It's important information because there isn't much analysis on the psychology in the article. Switched to quote of source (book) to compensate for the seemingly casual tone. tw^sabin 22:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Incidents

• MOS:SANDWICH

• I think the infobox should stay but the other pic should be moved. Maybe move the infobox up a little so it fits in the section.

Reactions

• MOS:SANDWICH

• move the patch image, not relevant to this segment

• Only one mention of parler. Is there anything more thats relevant?
• 'claims about Chief Justice' What claims?
• August 13. specify August 13. 2021
• 'A QAnon flag' this image would be much better up in the Flynn section
• Removal of related content-- I think one paragraph per platform would be a better layout here. With one final paragrpah covering other platforms that don't have as much coverage/any conclusions.

 Not done Content is chronological currently. Sorting per site would lose the chronology, and it's really the chronology that's important here because it positions QAnon centrally (what the escalating consequence for the QAnon online communities was), instead of centering on the platforms themselves (what each platform did – and could create an optic of comparing platforms one with another to see which one was the toughest on QAnon content, and that's not the WP:DUE angle). Struck provisionally, can discuss. tw^sabin 22:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the section was restructured somewhat. Some of the segments were out initially out of chronological order but the issue seems resolved. I see the reasoning in keeping it in order, back when my initial comment was still relevant, there was a ton of repeat info that was confusing to read. The passage now reads substantially better and the timeline is very neatly done. Also, the 'migration to alt tech' subsection fits very well here. Very Good Job. Etriusus 02:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

---

This review will likely take a long time to both complete and to respond to. For the purposes of giving this topic the proper attention, I will be waving the 7 day time constraint (within reason of course). As suggestions are cleaned up, use the  Done template, a strikethrough, or some other means of indicating the recommendation is resolved. Etriusus 02:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

An accurate description of me after reading this page link

GA checklist

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):

   Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes

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):

   All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Article passes GA review. Good work!

@AFreshStart:, following a herculean effort, the page has passed the GA review. I did some last-minute clean-up, feel free to check my work and revert anything you disagree with. This is still room for improvement (including a number of invisible templates for further expansion) but this is outside the scope of a GA review. Should the page get much larger, there will likely need to be a split. Etriusus 03:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, just to be aware of: Newsweek. Newsweek isn't a particularly reliable source so it likely can't be added but I'm just mentioning it so it's on your radar. If a more reliable source picks this up, then perhaps it can be included.

Newsweek isn't reliable ?? (I'm asking this seriously because I've used it several times and I find this worrying) Psychloppos (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)