Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)

Bias in the opening sentence.

Look at any prominent left wing activist or black victim of police violence who both have criminal convictions and a wikipedia article, and tell me if any of them call the person a criminal like this in the opening sentence, despite many of them having far longer and more serious lists of convictions.

Even Martha stewart lists a number of positive things about her and her life, before mentioning her conviction on insider trading in the second paragraph, as it's one of the most notable things she's known for.

Putting "convicted criminal" in the opening sentence smacks of blatant partisan bias, attempting to paint the subject in as negative a light as possible from the opening sentence. It would seem more appropriate to list this in another section detailing why this person is notable for various public clashes with authority connected to his ideology.

Imagine if we opened the George Floyd article by calling him a convicted criminal, something that factors prominently in his notariety. What would the reaction be?

NPOV. JStressman (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the opening sentence is a fair assessment of why Sewell has become notable enough for his own page.

Sewell's criminality, in particular the Grampians armed robbery and security guard assault brought him to the forefront of the Australian, and in particular Victorian public.

Martha Stewart was in public life for 40 years before her conviction and had her own television program. George Flyod was unknown until his murder. Tom Sewell was unknown in the eyes of the Australian public until the Grampians armed robbery.

I would also argue his self professed Neo Nazism is a far more defamatory statement towards his character than being called a convicted criminal. GrandmaPoss (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No armed robbery was committed at the Grampians, this is blatantly false information, an alleged armed robbery occurred at the Cathedral Range, but that has not even been proven at court yet.

He mainly became well known due to the Grampians camping trip where absolutely zero violent crime took place, and the 60 minutes documentary by Nick McKenzie on his organization, not any criminal actions.

Tom Sewell has been running/involved neo-Nazi groups for the better part of a decade and that is what he is most well known for, not any criminality as you are suggesting. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is most of the Neo Nazi groups run by Sewell over the last decade are not well known as evidence by their omission in this very article. The Cathedral ranges allegations and the assault of the Channel 9 Security guard propelled him into the spotlight, not anything he actually did as an activist.

Regardless, the original objection was that 'convicted criminal' was bias as it was attempting to paint him in a negative light - being a Neo Nazi is far more damning of his character than being a convicted criminal. GrandmaPoss (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The cathedral ranges incident was certainly not the cause of his propulsion into the limelight, rather being the Grampians incident, the 60 minutes infiltration and documentary and more recently protesting, not any alleged criminal activity. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The 60 minutes story wasn't just on Sewell, we need to remember. It was on a broad range of characters. Yes 60 minutes did bring him some level of notoriety, however the charges he is currently facing for the events at The Cathedral ranges and his conviction for the assault of security guard at Channel 9 and the events surrounding those events have certainly drawn even greater amounts of attention again. He is a convicted criminal and it is appropriate to refer to him as such given 2 out of 4 subsections under the activities section deal either with confirmed criminal activities or allegations of criminal activities. Confirmed criminal activities and allegations of criminal activities make up a substantial proportion of this article. AlanS^talk 06:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The 60 minutes story was primarily on Sewell (given it was a group that he leads and plays a foundational role in) and bought him great amounts of public attention, I would say his assault conviction brought him a decent amount of attention but not to the degree of the 60 minutes documentary, or the Grampians incident, most people who know who he is know him for either that or the recent protests in the streets of Melbourne, I think having his assault conviction in the third paragraph as it currently is is appropriate. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Fully 2 out of 4 sub-sections of the Activities sections is made up of confirmed criminal behaviour or confirmed criminal behaviour. His court appearances and convictions are notable in their own right especially given how they Channel 9 one came about. AlanS^talk 02:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay? His convictions are notable, but they are only notable because of his prior actions, if he was completely unknown (long you are suggesting he was before his convictions) then his convictions would hold little to no weight. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC (Referring to Thomas Sewell as a convicted criminal in the first paragraph of the lede)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to include this information in the first paragraph. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 00:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Should Thomas Sewell be referred to as a convicted criminal in the first paragraph of the lede? TarnishedPath^talk 05:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT. The opening paragraph should follow major events in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 05:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Unless I'm mistaken the altercation that led to the conviction appears to be the main reason for his notability. It's inclusion in the first paragraph fits well within MOS:LEADBIO. Nemov (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nemov He was in a 60 minutes segment prior to that, He was also in a 60 minutes segment, but that was after the attack on the security guard and so were a bunch of other characters. He was by no means the centre of attention. The attack on the security guard is what really amplified the main reason for his notability, particularly given the place it occured. I would think it is the main reason he gets articles in heaps of media outlets everytime he sneezes these days. TarnishedPath^talk 00:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nemov, just out of interest here's the first version of the page when it was approved for mainspace out of Articles for Creation. TarnishedPath^talk 08:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support after having a quick read of the article I couldn't find anything saying Sewell served any time in jail, therefore I feel saying convicted criminal may be a bit misleading. Instead perhaps maybe saying "Sewell has been convicted of $x$, $y$, and $z$" may be a bit more clearer for readers. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @GMH Melbourne FYI, have a read of the last sentence of the Cathedral Ranges section, which states he was sentenced to jail time already served. TarnishedPath^talk 02:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I still feel stipulating Sewell's convictions is more accurate, that being said, I am also fine with stating Sewell is a convicted criminal. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Stipulate convictions without "criminal". Otherwise it sounds too much like someone who makes a living from serial crime. Senorangel (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: TarnishedPath, would you mind rephrasing the RfC question to remove the “Given that” premise? The question, as it follows the comma should be enough for neutrality. — HTGS (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @HTGS I've rephrased per your suggestion. TarnishedPath^talk 01:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support - seems like to me that his main notability derives from his activities surrounding him being an Australian neo-Nazi, as evidenced by the articles title. His criminal behavior seems well covered in the subsequent paragraphs, and maybe, just possibly, those paragraphs could be reduced just a little bit to make room for a sentence about his anti-Trans views described in the March 2023: anti-transgender rights rally sub-section.

And on a side note, it appears he is also anti-immigration too, and apparently likes to recruit young boys into his cause: the young ones are more dedicated to the cause, making them preferable. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 02:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: The present text in which his crimes and convictions are given in some detail gives a great deal more context than simply adding "convicted criminal" would do, which could mean so many things and which implies that crime is his profession and source of his notability. Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support, a single sentence mention is fine.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support There is no good reason not to mention it. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead problems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Cameron Dewe would you mind if I cut the lead-too-long tag? I don’t feel like the problem is actually the length itself, and I think if it is sorted for the lead-follows-body issues, that should sort it out.

To address the root of the problem, the body is structured in a way that makes it unintuitive how to add new topics (Views; Activities; and Personal life), so editors are likely to just add them to the lead. A common problem. — HTGS (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@HTGS: I think the lead is still probably a bit verbose, especially when it gets into the third and fourth paragraphs which appear to repeat, almost word for word, what is said in the body rather than summarizing the assaults he was convicted of in a sentence or two. Also the way these events are conveyed reads like an attack article as it focuses on the convictions first, not that the convictions arise out of criminal assaults. MOS:BLPCHRONO advises "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order." I take that to mean convictions are written about after the details of the assault are explained. The first line says he is a convicted criminal, the rest of the lead does not really need to go into that much additional detailed explanation, especially when this is explained in the body in the same detail as I see in the lead. Advice at MOS:LEADLENGTH implies that a lead should not exceed about 10% of an article and the number of words should be proportionate to the size of the article. Also it should give a appropriate degree of weight to the importance of various events subjects life.

To me, a short and more concise lead should actually discourage editors adding to the lead, as it would suggest they should look to the body of the article to add more detail; perhaps even adding a new section or two. As you indicate, part of the issue is the layout of the body, with Personal life coming after views and activities, which seems to leave no room for expansion. It might be better if the order was reversed, with a historical life outline in chronological order appearing first, followed by sections about views and activities. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, with the material about the "Revealed documentary" being moved to the body can the tag about the lede containing information which is not contained in the body of the article be removed? TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @TarnishedPath. I had only skimmed the tags, so didn’t realise that was the only info not contained in body.

The same should be taken as true regarding the rest of the article. I am not well-versed on the topic, so I’ll leave cleanup to you and others, @Cameron Dewe. I certainly think a standard chrono order could well be an improvement; the only reason ‘Personal life’ sections usually come last is because for most bios that stuff is less relevant for the reader than the bulk of the body. — HTGS (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the personal life section, I dare say there's probably not going to be a hell of a lot available in the WP:RS to fill that out. The bloke's notability started when he decided he was going to go to a TV station and belt a security guard because he didn't like what the TV station was going to play about him and his merry bunch of LARPers. TarnishedPath^talk 04:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ps, I've removed the lede extra info tag as I believe that this has been addressed. TarnishedPath^talk 04:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

PS, I reduced the lede (particularly the 3rd paragraph) a bit. TarnishedPath^talk 04:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed reference to their New Zealand birth as the only reliable source I could locate is https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/files/documents/2023-10/sentencing-remarks-dpp-v-sewell-hersant.pdf and we can't use that per WP:BLPPRIMARY. TarnishedPath^talk 05:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Thank you - That was my primary concern about extra information being in the lead section. A person, born in New Zealand, but now residing in Australia, is entitled to call themselves an Australian because they are normally legally entitled to reside there. Their country of birth only becomes an issue if they Australian citizenship is an issue. So, suggesting the person is a "New Zealand born Australian" in the lead would suggest the article will include discussing issue with their place of birth in the Australian context. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, I suspect the information about his country of birth was likely placed in the article by someone with a close relationship to him given I couldn't find much about it except in that court transcript and other wikis. It can stay out until such time that there are suitable sources to justify its inclusion. TarnishedPath^talk 06:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Thanks. In both New Zealand and Australia, one self-identifies their ethnicity. So if the subject chooses to claim he is a "European Australian" then he is entitled to claim so. To me, by his actions, the subject is identifying himself as "Australian" and does not see his country of birth as being a barrier to being one. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, I found a single source that references his New Zealand birth in once of the grouped lists of citations. I've added it to the infobox, but I don't think his new zealand birth needs to be added to the lede as I only found it once. TarnishedPath^talk 08:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Agreed. I do not think his place of birth is significant enough to be in the lead section. Just the info-box is sufficient. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, is the reduction in the lede sufficient do you think for removal of the lede notice? TarnishedPath^talk 11:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Yes, I think the lead section is a better summary now. It no longer reads like the evidence for every active criminal offence is being listed in the lead, just enough to characterize the nature of his offending and reasons for imprisonment. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 09:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I will review this. While it looks to be decently written and sourced from a skim over it, I have some major issues.

My biggest is, is this really all the information available about Sewell? There is so little about him here it doesn't feel like a biography at all. I cannot believe that with someone who has as high a profile as this guy that they have found nothing on him, besides individual listings of Incidents he has been involved with little commentary. As a result, this reads in a disjointed manner where it's just a few sentences that provide little context and then nothing else. What was he doing before this? What else does he do? Is there really nothing? Most sources are used only once, which indicates to me this article may not have WP:MINED its sources effectively.

With something like the Lads Society, for instance, this article barely explains what it is, so the stuff wrt Tarrant comes off like a non sequiter. What was he trying to recruit him into? Why did he reject it (I know for a fact the coverage says this)? What did the group do? What was his response to Chch, since his attempt to recruit Tarrant was a major controversy for him?

If there really isn't anything else, it shouldn't impact the GA, but I doubt it. Either way the article should be restructured because the incredibly brief early life section is awkward in relation to the rest of the article. It also just comes off like a list of incidents, which to some degree is perhaps unavoidable given the news cycle but there has to be some way to make this flow more naturally.

My concerns are fundamental enough to the way the article is structured that I think it would be to be difficult to address, but not impossible, so I won't quickfail this.

I will do a deeper/more formal look later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Another thing, this article has an excessive amount of citations on specific statements. If they're all needed, they should be bundled to be less of an eyesore. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, I've done a bit of restructure to put the personal life sections and early life/education sections together so they don't appear so disjointed as random sentences. I've also added some other material about Sewell's personal life that I hadn't read before which I found in a source using ProQuest. I wouldn't have otherwise read the material as it was behind a paywall.

I've also added some material on the Lads Society and Tarrant. Lastly I've grouped a bunch of references together in different places.

Has what I've done make the article better?

What further suggestions do you have? TarnishedPath^talk 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Already a major improvement! Great job. I will do a deeper look now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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):

   1A: I did a copyedit. After that, this passes. If I accidentally introduced any Americanisms feel free to revert those. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   LEAD: I am aware there was a discussion about this and it was the consensus, but as a member of WP:CRIMEBIO, this kind of thing has been discussed before and saying in the lead that someone is a "criminal" or "convicted criminal" alone is sloppy writing and frowned upon. A criminal conviction can be anything, it can be mass homicide, rape, tax fraud, or anything. Sources rarely describe someone as just "a criminal", it's typically what their conviction was, many crimes are not a claim to notability, so describing someone as just "a criminal" is not great. It is not a BLP issue since he was convicted, it's just sloppy. This isn't a point of failure for the GA nomination, I'm aware that there was a whole discussion about this, but I really don't think this is good writing. Him being charged with crimes is of course relevant information for the lead, but I think focusing more on what he did to get that conviction (attacking people and nazi protests) may be more clear than just saying "criminal"

   I'm mildly surprised that this uses Infobox officeholder, given he is the "self appointed leader", but that's not exactly wrong.

   Per WP:LEAD, there should not be material only in the lead. As it is now the bit: "In October 2023 Sewell was sentenced to a prison term of one month and seven days, after attacking hikers at Victoria's Cathedral Range." is only in the lead. Add that to the body? It also seems kind of random that this is the criminal charge in the lead and not the prior one.

   More thoughts to come. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   This passes on this front now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   @PARAKANYAA, I've performed some edits to the lead and the body. The being sentenced to a prison term was already in the body, where it stated that he was sentenced to time served. I edited to make it explicit that time served was one month and seven days. I've also edited the lead to remove convicted criminal which may be the consensus of the prior RFC, however I've edited to state the criminal acts that he has been convicted of. I hope none of the other editors have an issue with that. I'll continue looking at the rest of your suggestions below later on. TarnishedPath^talk 09:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   Please see also my suggestion for the lead: Special:PermanentLink/1255072406. I rearranged the content to better describe who he is in the first sentence. The edit is just a suggestion and I don't dispute the previous version.—Alalch E. 00:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Your suggestion solved the problem I had here and I support it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   LAYOUT: The "political views" heading is a misnomer, it focuses on his views but is also on his leadership of various far-right groups, which is more than views I'd say? I feel it's a slightly misleading heading. This also just kind of feels like pre-2021 activities, because him recruiting Tarrant sticks out in this section (further organizational issues listed below)

There's also the "activities" section. After looking into the sourcing I realize it's probably to some degree unavoidable given how he is covered (whenever he does something that makes the news), but this feels like an unfortunate way to structure a biography article. All the content here is fine, but it doesn't feel cohesive or like part of a biography on him, just a list. I also think there may be a few too many headings in this activities section, which makes it feel even more like a weird list. If you can't find a better way to structure this that's understandable so it's not enough to fail over, but I find it awkward. Also, when it comes to the Cathedral Range assault, that paragraph is structured backwards, with the charges first when it should be the crime followed by the charges then the sentence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA I've changed the name of the "political views" section to "politics". I hope that better encapsulates the section. I've also re=ordered the Cathedral Range sub-section. Please let me know if you think I can do a better job there. As per the "activities" section in general, you are correct that it's a consequence of the sourcing. Even before your commontary I've been thinking about how to better format it and I haven't to date. TarnishedPath^talk 13:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have done a first pass at fixing the layout. As before, this is a suggestion that may address this point of improvement. I agree with your review in that the layout must be more conventional and that the headers need to be descriptive. I would also suggest that the "Views" section should always come after the "Career / Activities / similar" core chronological account in a biography. —Alalch E. 13:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Just a ping, because my above comment looks like it's easy to miss. —Alalch E. 18:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks better to me. I still feel like this is too many headings, not every single incident needs its own one when most are only a paragraph. Maybe group some of them together? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: At the moment I am unable to come up with a tidy subsectioning scheme. I think that the article can work work without any of those.—Alalch E. 23:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

An unrelated, extremely minor gripe: is there any specific reason the two further reading links are there? Is there anything unique those two articles have that necessitates their inclusion, or any content they have that isn't in this article? To me, it just looks like they rehash the content already in the article, which is not of much use. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that's sourcing that could be used in the article and isn't needed because there is other sourcing covering that stuff in the article already. I've removed it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

WORD CHOICE: describes him as a neo-Nazi but that's well attested and supported by sources. I see no issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

FICTION: Not an issue here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

LISTS: Not an issue here (unless you count the list of activities at the bottom, which we will get to with the layout check) PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

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

   REF SECTION: No issues here, pass.

   RELIABLE SOURCES: Most sources are good, all reliable news outlets. I have some questions as to the reliability of the two citations to the Herald Sun, given that they are a tabloid, and the RSN discussions do not give me confidence. Can you replace these citations?

   This is unrelated to the GA criteria, but I would recommend standardizing the wikilinking of the publication name in the citations. It should preferably be consistent, as it is now it is linked in some of them but others it's just plaintext. Also, the first citation for the "neo-Nazi" bundle cite has Australian Broadcasting Corporation linked thrice, present identically in three separate parameters. That citation should also probably give the source as ABC News (Australia) and not the publishing company, as other sources in the same page do. It seems that every citation to that publication is formatted differently (for example, one gives it as ABC.net.au, some use the publication name, some only give the publisher, some don't give the publisher. Should be standardized. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   @PARAKANYAA, I've removed Herald Sun. I'm surprised I missed it being there as I was involved in the most recent WP:RS/N discussion and I have been removing it most of the time that I come across it. I'll look at your suggestion of standardised links to publisher later. TarnishedPath^talk 09:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   @PARAKANYAA, I've now standardized all of the references to refer to |work=... and provided links for everything. Let me know if I've missed anything. What next? TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   Nothing, all good here on this front. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

1. SPOT CHECK/COPYVIO CHECK: (see below}

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   MAJOR ASPECTS: While the sources are reliable, the sources are entirely news articles. While this would be fine if this was all that there was, there is actually a bit of academic discussion about Sewell that this article does not include, which focus on elements that the news sources don't cover or cover differently.

   These sources, which I was able to access either through the WPL or elsewhere, give sigcov of Sewell:

   • Global Identitarianism, Routledge, 2023, pp. 206-207
   • Global Heating and the Australian Far Right, Routledge, 2024, pp. 74, 97, 100, 107, 215
   • A Fortified Far Right?: Scrutinizing the Threat, Taylor & Francis, 2024, pp. 37, 94, 97
   • Richards, Imogen; Rae, Maria; Vergani, Matteo; Jones, Callum (2021-04-01). "Political philosophy and Australian far-right media: A critical discourse analysis of The Unshackled and XYZ". Thesis Eleven. 163 (1): 107, 125. doi:10.1177/07255136211008605. ISSN 0725-5136. Retrieved 2024-11-03.

   Less significant:

   • Masculinity and Violent Extremism, Palgrave Macmillan, 2022, pp. 58, 62-63
   • Global Perspectives on Anti-Feminism, Edinburgh University Press, 2021, pp. 128, 131

   While a GA does not need to be comprehensive like a FA would have to be, I believe that missing academic discussion entirely of a far-right figure when that coverage exists means this article does not yet pass the "main aspect" GA criterion. Other sources it may be useful to replace news sources with them as they are usually considered more reliable, though that is not strictly necessary, and you don't have to incorporate every single source I listed above those are just suggestions, as again this isn't the FA criteria. But it needs some academic discussion. If you need access to any of the sections in these sources that discuss Sewell feel free to email me.

   FOCUSED: No issues here, pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   I'll have a read of those articles tomorrow evening, at least the ones I can access through WPL and see what they can replace and if there is any extra content that can be added to the article from them. TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   @PARAKANYAA, I've added a bit of material and included usage of those sources. Do you have any other suggestions? TarnishedPath^talk 04:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

   Seems to pass this now. The sources could probably be mined more, but this is enough for major aspects. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   @PARAKANYAA I've added a bit more material, reworded a bit and reused sources a bit more. TarnishedPath^talk 08:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I was initially questioning the usage of the disamb neo-Nazi - not disputing he is one, but it seemed unusual to use that as the disamb. However I did find some other well written pages that used it (James Mason (neo-Nazi), Bill White (neo-Nazi)), it doesn't seem very contentious to apply the label to him, and WP:DAB says nothing about it as far as I can see so I don't think it's an issue.

   I haven't marked it a pass yet since I haven't finished the check but preliminary it seems fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   Per other checks, pass this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   neo-Nazi was the disamb in the article when it was published to mainspace after an AFC review and it's been that way since as far as I can tell. I think it is probably the best disamb to distinguish him from the other Thomas Sewells. TarnishedPath^talk 09:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   I agree with it being the best I just thought I'd mark it down lest anyone take any issue with it in the future. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No issues here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

2. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are both valid CC Attribution licenses and appropriate. The infobox one needs a caption. Should say what year it was at least. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

   @PARAKANYAA  Done. I've add text stating that it was taken from an interview in the lead up to a match with rival Neil Erikson. TarnishedPath^talk 00:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

   @TarnishedPath Sorry for the wait I completely forgot I was doing this! Will start again tonight, apologies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   All good. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks

Random selection.b Checking from this revision

• "Sewell was born around 1993 in New Zealand." country supported by 10, year supported by 9a (basic math does not count as OR), good
• "The incident was filmed and later posted on social media by Sewell himself. The attack drew condemnation from Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews who labelled it as "sickening"." The second sentence is supported, but I can't find anything that says it was posted by Sewell, only that it was posted online and filmed by his associate. Also, the sources specify that they were racially abusing the guard, who was Black, which should probably be added. The News.com.au source specifies that the report included material on Sewell's group, which is probably implied but I think should just be said.

More to come. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, Ok I've removed the bit about it being posted online by Sewell himself, I think that bit might have been supported by unreliable sources which I removed (can't remember as it was a while ago). Obviously he wasn't the person filming it as sources state it was his associate, Jakob Hersant and so I removed the whole sentence. I've added material about the "dance, monkey dance" comment from Hersant and added that the security guard was a black man. The wording is bit rough and let me know if you think it can be improved. What next? TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Ok, continuing. I'm also going to be making this a bit of a misc comments section alongside the spot check because reviewing it this way makes me notice things that aren't elaborated on.
• "Videos leaked to the press in November 2019 revealed Sewell's aim was to attract and recruit members from mainstream society under the guise of a men's fitness club." supported by source, but minor WP:CLOP issue: "under the guise of a men's fitness club" is the exact language in the Guardian source, which I feel is creative enough phrasing that it should be rephrased.
• "A leaked manual from Sewell's groups revealed how their members manipulate social media and journalists to gain publicity, amplify messaging and help them recruit new members" supported by source, good. however i think the sentence before this should probably be after since it refers to what i think is the same leaked material in the prior sentence, before it is brought up, which is confusing
• "The NSN was established through a merger of the Lads Society and Antipodean Resistance." supported by the source, good
• "After being sentenced, Sewell performed a Nazi salute outside the courtroom." supported by source, good
• The whole section about him attacking the guard is supported by the source, but it's phrased very awkwardly. Can you try to rephrase it to make it flow better?
• More to come. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA, I've reworded the text regarding the leaked video a little bit, I've also re-arranged those two sentences you mentioned and I've reworded a bit in the security guard section to hopeful make the language more natural. Please let me know if the changes I've made go far enough. TarnishedPath^talk 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ps, I haven't thought of a way to reduce the headings at this point in time. TarnishedPath^talk 09:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: