Talk:Truth in Numbers?/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is readable and flows pretty well. The reception section could be a teeny bit less cluttered (see below), but it's fine for GA. No MoS issues as far as I can tell.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   As far as I can see, anything that might reasonably be considered controversial is cited with a reference. I'm not sure if The Register or The Inquirer count as particularly reliable sources, but for the facts they are establishing (hearsay facts: what Jimbo or KRS-One said, say) they'll do. Similarly, although Larry Sanger's Twitter account and WMF mailing lists also don't strictly count as reliable sources and have the WP:SPS problem, they do establish what they said satisfactorily. That it is the reaction of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger to a documentary about Wikipedia kind of makes the RS/SPS problem go away. No OR issues.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It feels like the balance of reactions by people associated with Wikipedia (Jimbo, Larry Sanger, Sage Ross etc.) has been bunched together a bit in order so as not to give disproportionate coverage to their opinions compared to the Urlesque review and the Carlos Serrano review. Both of these reviews give the film a lot of praise, which is interesting enough, but the reasons for Jimmy Wales to change his opinion between the initial filming at Wikimania and now seems an interesting matter that could have been explored.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It would be easy for this article to have become slanted towards a pro-Wikipedia viewpoint given that it is a Wikipedia article, and I did slightly get a sort of 'too much meta-recursion!' feeling about the mention of how the D'Addario Urlesque review describes how the article about the film was nominated for AfD... in an article that isn't just not up for AfD but standing for GAC. Otherwise, the article doesn't take sides on a film which some Wikimedians have seen as critical of Wikipedia but just lets the facts and the critics do the talking.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit warring to be seen, only reverts are anti-vandalism.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

   One piece of non-free media (the film cover in the infobox) has suitable fair use rationale. Everything else is free content. Captions are fine.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The writing and content is well-executed considering the huge potential POV issues of having Wikipedians writing about Wikipedia and the fact that the extremely limited distribution of the film means most readers probably haven't or cannot see the film.

Reviewer: —Tom Morris (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)