Jump to content

Talk:The Fine Young Capitalists/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Kiyoshiendo (talk · contribs) 01:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put the rest of my review on hold, as I have one major issue with this article:

  • The good article critera requires that a Good Article be "Broad in its coverage", addressing "main aspects" of the subject.

As far as I see it, there are many bits of information that need to be addressed, such as:

  • Group philosophy
  • History and founding
  • Notable members of the group
  • Legal status
  • and reception and critcism of the movement.

Not all of these subjects need to be included, and as the article stands, it does not have enough information to be of significant use to readers seriously interested in the group, especially compared to other Good Articles. It is, however, summary and well-formatted, and what information is there is well-written.

As always, please put your comments down below, and be proud of what you can accomplish.

I see that you are a new user. I understand that you may want more information to be inserted into the article, but unfortunately there is insufficient coverage from reliable sources about these aspects of the organization. GA does not require comprehensiveness. I believe that at its current state, the article does address the main aspects of the topic. sst✈discuss 04:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a difficult problem for you to solve. As that means there is not enough information to put into the article, then it means that the article will never improve. Until new sources exist, it is not broad enough to be considered a good article. This is a very curt explanation, we both understand, and I am sorry this is so. The upside is that you have about a week to look up sources. Good luck. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is just my opinion here. I don't think that's possible. The group has been notable primarily for it being involved with controversy rather than its only game. I do not think there are anymore sources to be found for it. Might need to hear an outsiders opinion on this. GamerPro64 05:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with GamerPro64. The topic meets WP:GNG, but there are not that many reliable sources that address the topic outside GamerGate. sst✈discuss 05:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest? A peer review? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think opening a peer review during a good article nomination is a good idea. sst✈discuss 08:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a second opinion from a more experienced editor is needed. GamerPro64 13:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. This big concern of mine is that the good article criteria will be cheapened if we apply it to articles that are skimpy on the content. Would you like to recommend another editor? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Made a request for a 2nd opinion. It makes sense that this might take a while due to how controversial the subject is but hopefully someone will answer the request. GamerPro64 19:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Talk:The Fine Young Capitalists/GA1. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloning my comment from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Talk:The Fine Young Capitalists/GA1: I find Feminist Improvising Group interesting, because it manages to be a good article with proper references by stretching out its limited citations for all they have. The article has a lot of content despite what little has been written about the group. I think a similar length can be achieved with The Fine Young Capitalists. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a major difference would be that Feminist Improvising Group is much older than TFYC, and has scholarly sources, which TFYC does not have. Since TFYC is clearly involved in GamerGate, almost all sources are going to be about GG, with not many sources focusing on the organization itself. When improving the Depression Quest article, another topic associated with GG, to good article status, I too was asked for video game aggregate scores, but simply could not provide them due to the low number of actual reviews. I am afraid that the article in its current state has already utilized the available reliable sources on this subject, but I may be able to take a fresh look at the sources themselves later to see if anything else can be extracted. sst✈discuss 00:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a question. Is there any information on the game they made? From what I heard it was finished and is on Steam. GamerPro64 01:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has covered this; it has been released on Steam. I think there may be sufficient coverage to create a separate Afterlife Empire article, but that is irrelevant right now. However, looking at this article from a website called GamerGate Wiki, it seems possible to expand this article using the APGNation source. Thoughts? sst✈discuss 02:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the APGNation interview, question one might be helpful. They talk about their mission. Guess that can be considered their group philosophy. GamerPro64 05:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • W.r.t the aspects Group philosophy; History and founding; Notable members of the group; Legal status; and reception and criticism of the movement, suggest that the TFYC Tumblr might contain some information that we could use - even as a primary source for the first four aspects. The Tumblr appears to contain additional information to what is provided on the website. I will endeavour to find something there, but appreciate any efforts of other editors. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion, since this nomination seems to have stalled: while we always are bound by the sources available, I do think that this article is missing some required information, and has structural issues. It talks about the projects that the group has done, and the results/controversies associated with them, but it doesn't talk at all about the group itself. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, containing no information that is not present (and cited) in the article body, but this article lead/infobox contains what little information about the group the article has (founded by Matthew Rappard, founded in Toronto, calls itself a radical feminist group)- none of that is in the body. It's even cited in the lead, since it's not present anywhere else. Even if there isn't a lot out there, this article would need a section in the body saying "TFYC was founded by blah blah in blah blah at blah blah date. It calls itself a blah blah, and its stated aims are "blah blah". I don't think an article that doesn't have even a few sentences on the article's nominal subject can be considered a GA. --PresN 03:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SSTflyer, PresN, and Kiyoshiendo: Trying to get this wrapped up so pinging both of you. Hopefully everything will and can be all settled here. GamerPro64 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think Kiyoshiendo is inactive, so the GA review would have to be closed by another editor. sst✈(discuss) 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kiyoshiendo has edited on Wikipedia within the past four days, so it would be premature to give this over to another editor. I've just posted on Kiyoshiendo's talk page, asking whether the review here will be resumed or if a new reviewer should be found. PresN's second-opinion comments are significant; has anyone addressed them yet? If so, the person doing so should note progress on this page. Thanks to all concerned. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I am in no position to close this. Please find a significant reviewer, one who is capable and kind. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PresN's comments, and I think I have somewhat addressed them. sst✈(discuss) 18:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset asked if I could take over as the reviewer here; I'm fine with that if no one has any objections. Bit busy at the moment catching up after the holiday, but I'll look over the changes later on today. --PresN 17:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PresN. I've taken the liberty of updating the GA nominee template on the article talk page from "2ndopinion" to "onreview" since you'll be taking over. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Review #2

Okay, rather than just continue the review above, I'm going to start over here. A lot has changed with the article, and I don't want to restrict myself to what the original reviewer said. Here goes:

  • "after independent game developer Zoë Quinn criticised the group’s women-only game design contest." - the wording implies that she criticized it for being "women-only"; would be better as just "after independent game developer Zoë Quinn criticised the group's initial design contest.", and leave the details to the more nuanced discussion in the body.
  • The lead doesn't summarize the new history section; add a sentence about the founder/mission.
  • "the inspiration from the group came from the underused ideas due to a lack of interest from business communities" - wonky ("from" the group) and hard to parse. Maybe "the inspiration for the group was the prevalence of underused game ideas due to a lack of interest from business communities"
  • "The group noted [...] from socialization, noting" - repetition of note; you also use the word again in the next sentence
  • "The group attempts to increase awareness of the men that support women, and noted that they accept donations from people of different backgrounds, by focusing on the game itself instead of the feminist ideology" - this reads like two sentences ran into each other and interleaved; the first and third clause seem to go together (though should start with "in addition" or something similar, since it's a separate idea from the previous statements), while the second clause (the donations one) has nothing to do with anything, really. Maybe it should be "The group accepts donations from people of any background, and refused to reject donations from 4chan users because of their perceived ideology.", or something like that.
  • "The group's first project is an initiative" - was an initiative, since it completed
  • "Five nominees were selected and the nominee to receive the most crowd-funding would have the game" -> "Five nominees were selected and the nominee who received the most crowd-funding would have their game"
  • Autobótika should not be bolded; bolding is not used for emphasis.
  • A little more details on what the Greenlight program is would be helpful
  • "TFYC stated that the winner would receive a portion of the profits with most of it going to charity, while all rights would remain with the women who submitted proposals, and that their transgender policy only said someone had to have identified as female prior to the contest as a means to prevent men from lying about their gender identity in order to participate." - this sentence is super long and kept jarring me as I read it; would be smoother as "TFYC made a statement in response reiterating that while the winner would receive a portion of the profits, most would go to charity, and that all rights would remain with the women who submitted proposals. They also clarified that their transgender policy only required submitters to have identified as female prior to the contest as a means to prevent men from lying about their gender identity in order to participate."
  • "After some delay to review the inclusiveness of their policies and finding nothing wrong, they opened the project" - a little editorializing, would be better as "After a delay to review the inclusiveness of their policies, TFYC decided not to change the wording and opened the project"
  • "SNless is another project being pursued by TFYC, which concerns the representation of minority groups in science fiction and allows those who identify as black to submit a black character with five winning entries being reproduced in a graphic novel." - another winding sentence, and a single-sentence paragraph; should be chopped up as perhaps "Another project pursued by TFYC is SNless, which concerns the representation of minority groups in science fiction. SNless is a contest in which submitters who identify racially as black propose a black character design. The five winning entries will be reproduced in a graphic novel."
  • The lead should mention that they have two other projects going on
  • Does the porn/STEM project have a name?
  • When did the SNless/STEM projects start? What is their current status?
  • "After the Gamergate controversy began" - when was that?
  • Did the other 4 videos after the Roberta Williams one ever get released? The article just says they were planned.
  • "that would not let 4chan take part in a project" - unless they specifically stated it this way, would make more sense as "that would not let people take part in a project because they participated at 4chan", since 4chan didn't do anything, people who go there did
  • Did the Reddit character ever get made?
  • "an entirely ordinary, non-idealized female role model." - period goes outside the quote, since you're not quoting a full sentence.
  • Don't link Afterlife Empire here; not only would the first link be way up above, it just redirects here
  • Hmm, I seem to remember a blog post or something by Quinn where she talks about why the agreement with them fell through; would probably be good to include that if possible, though only in brief. I think it was something about them stopping communication with her and making disparaging remarks in public? There's always a ton of context missing in any discussion about their interactions, since so much else was going on at the same time involving both of them.

Okay! Mostly grammar and flow issues, only a few content bits needed; the addition of the history section really helps. --PresN 16:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Fine_Young_Capitalists/GA1&oldid=693592976"