Talk:StoneToss/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Alalch E. (talk · contribs) 15:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

You know what, I'll risk it. This will be my next review for the October drive. Lazman321 (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

The easiest criterion to meet. There is indeed a list of references that follows the relevant guidelines at MOS:REFERENCES. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2b - Reliable sources

I am concerned about using The Daily Dot, Boing Boing, and Mashable in this article given how they are only considered marginally reliable on WP:RSP and how controversial the topic is. I'm fine with using The Daily Dot for verifying when the webcomic started, but otherwise, I recommend finding more high-quality sources or otherwise removing the information, particularly contentious information, supported by these sources. Lazman321 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having just finished the source check, a lot of the information supported by these sources are in the high-quality sources already cited. As such, I'm more convinced than before that should, for the most part, be replaced. The Daily Dot, however, might be worth keeping given that it does have new information that isn't really controversial such as the community bans on Reddit and Discord. Lazman321 (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321, I've removed Boing Boing and Mashable. Please let me know if my edits are satisfactory. TarnishedPath^talk 14:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. I noticed Boing Boing is still cited, but I didn't realize beforehand that the author was a subject-matter expert. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2c - No original research

Reviewing... - Source check here. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, finished. I did notice a few things that need addressed but nothing too crazy. Lazman321 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2d - No copyright violations

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

3b - Focused

4 - Neutral

5 - Stable

Given that much of what is contentious in this article has been solidified by consensus on the talk page, any reasonable content dispute that this article has had has been resolved. Current attempts at challenging this consensus have been quickly quashed, and no discussion on the talk page has been active since August. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

The one image included in this article is the logo, which has a valid public domain tag. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6b - Relevant media

The logo is certainly relevant to the article. Perhaps you could include a comic to illustrate StoneToss's Neo-Nazi ideology, but I won't require it. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We previously had a discussion about including one of the the comics from Red Pannels (see Talk:StoneToss/Archive 1#Red Panels) and it was decided that we shouldn't, partly because the licence for the file was questionable. The file has since been deleted. When it comes to StoneToss comics at the bottom of their webpage is a copyright notice "© 2017– 2023 stonetoss.com" so I think that would be a definite no to using their comics. TarnishedPath^talk 09:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 - Verdict

@TarnishedPath: You know, there's something bugging me about this article that can't really be addressed under one criterion, as it honestly encompasses multiple. It's not enough to quick-fail this article, but it is enough for me to put the review on hold before I can continue further into my review. My issue is that the career section, which is the main section of the article, is messy and disorganized.

The current header is a misnomer; it details much more than StoneToss's career, delving into the content of and reaction toward his comics. "Overview" would probably be a better header.
Paragraph one starts with an awkwardly written introduction to StoneToss, before suddenly transitioning into a boring "A said X, B said Y" format regarding StoneToss's objectionable content. I feel in-text attribution is unnecessary for the most part here because
Paragraph two consists of three seemingly unrelated sentences.
Paragraph three is dedicated to summarizing a single source, save for a sentence at the end mentioning a tangentially related statement from another source. This is especially strange since both sources, useful as they are, spend at most a paragraph discussing StoneToss.
Paragraph four is a single-sentence paragraph about random trivia.

This disorganization makes it difficult for the section to readily convey encyclopedic information to a general audience. Not to mention, the number of quotes in this section is both excessive to the point of copyright violation and potentially misleading in that implies that the objectionable nature of StoneToss's comics is the opinion of some outlets rather than the general consensus of pretty much all available sources. I suggest that to remedy this, the section is reorganized to consolidate relevant ideas into substantive paragraphs that don't rely on quotes beyond for illustration. The first one or two paragraphs could introduce StoneToss broadly before delving into more specific characteristics of his comics, with the next one or two dealing with reactions toward the comic such as its popularity on Twitter and the right-wing and the re-purposing of the comics for memes.

I'll be putting this review On hold for ten days and will continue the review after this is addressed. Lazman321 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]