Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Place (Reddit)/1

Place (Reddit)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep, reliable sources have been added to document the 2022 version and overall the article meets the GA criteria. Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was listed in 2020 following a short review. That year, I raised the concern that this article does not include any image of or link to the final version of Place, despite the fact that such an image would presumably be justified under WP:NFCC. MrMeAndMrMe raised concern that the GA status was unwarranted, after which the thread died. I recently returned to this article, given the media coverage of Place's creator, Josh Wardle (of Wordle fame). Wardle is not mentioned at all, which gives me concern that criterion 3 ("broad in its coverage") was not met. Given the concerns from multiple angles and editors, I feel it is appropriate for the community to give this a more comprehensive reassessment. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Could you expand on what you think needs addressing, besides adding mention of a recently-notable person you could do yourself? You fail to mention in your brief that there was a response to your query about the final version - Reddit removed it - and so the issue is resolved. And the other user who said "I don't think it deserves GA" gave no reasoning and seemed to be speaking, based on their edit history at the time, from a fallacious article length perspective. As in, I don't see anything that would undermine the GA status, besides a need to now mention Wardle, which you don't need a community GAR to do. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find that response at all compelling. The image is still available from screenshots, and as it's the result of the experiment, I'd think it's clearly relevant enough to fall under NFCC. Regarding Wardle, did it only recently come to light that he created Place? I find it hard to believe that coverage of a topic could be comprehensive without mentioning who created it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, even with fair use, it is discouraged if not disallowed to upload works not from the original source - we can't give an original source anymore. There could also be actual NFCC issues with the "doesn't harm profits" criterion, if the version uploaded to Wikipedia becomes the main version available. And, yes, nothing I found when doing the review mentioned Wardle, because the only relevant part of the creator of Place was "Reddit user", people who are often pseudo-anonymous and non-notable enough to go into detail. "Made by a Reddit user we know nothing about"... When he became more notable recently, his past creation of "Place" came to light. I'm sure you could use google time machine to check, if proving so is important to you - or just add the name to the article and stop making out that a potential oversight of a non-notable person's name means that there will be other information missing, if you can't come up with what that information could be. Kingsif (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not giving a more in-depth reasoning for why this page should not be of lesser value; I was only highlighting something that I thought was especially important. I did actually have a reason in which I was of this belief. I was mostly comparing two articles, The Button (Reddit) and Place (Reddit). From what I can find, the two are mostly the same in popularity and have, roughly, the same amount of popularity and coverage online. The button is longer, more referenced, meanwhile Place is significantly shorter. Even still, the button is still only start class, while Place is good class. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 05:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrMeAndMrMe: Thanks for expanding on your concerns; someone has probably not assessed the Button article for a while, but there are significant differences. Place's mechanics are simple - add a pixel to a communal drawing board - while the Button is complex enough that a whole section has been dedicated at its article to explain it; that adds to the length naturally. The other possible difference, which I haven't checked, is that in any formal review, like GA or a peer review, "clutter" text may be removed; it is possible that the article for the Button has unnecessary or too-detailed discussion of the subject that would be streamlined by going through a review process like the Place article did. Just my thoughts, but if there is anything specific that seems to be missing, you are welcome to either add it or bring it up in reassessment. But simple "well it's shorter than X article" isn't actually a reason to open a GAR, let alone an actionable comment. Kingsif (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that starting your comment with following a short review is unnecessarily misleading about the original GANR (which I did) - length doesn't dictate quality - and so the descriptor seems to only be included to encourage people coming here to doubt the validity of the original review, i.e. agree if only with your conclusion, even though the rest of your comment seems to allude that the article just needs updating. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly possible for a short GA review to be valid if the article is good enough going in; I would need to look more deeply at the history to determine if that's the case here. The salient fact for above is just that there are enough concerning factors that I felt it prudent to open this reassessment to ask uninvolved editors to take a look. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the drive-by comment, but I just read this article and I was surprised by the lack of a final image. Seems like a major omission. I also agree that the article is too short and should mention Wardle. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder: No worries; I have tried to explain the potential copyvio issues with an image that does not exist at its original location, and now that r/place is back for 2022, there is again the permanency concern. Wardle was not notable until he made Wordle recently, and such information could easily have been added (as updates are to GAs all the time) without starting a reassessment. Kingsif (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good and Featured articles should be regularly updated and maintained to qualify for these. Wordle became notable three months ago and I would not that maintained. Anyway, it doesn't classify for GA anymore as per recent events. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 02:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to need some strong defence for saying it doesn't classify for GA anymore as per recent events! Assuming you are referring to the fact r/place has returned in 2022, again, this is a matter of updating. If the update would be too great to just wave through, then actual comments in the vein of an actual GAR review should be left so that someone can update the article with GA project guidance - a user simply asserting "this can't be GA" is completely pointless (both for improving and for trying to defend a removal of status). You can help improve the article by either editing it or providing actionable comments for someone to update it, if you are actually interested. Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the ambiguity, I thought it would be somewhat obvious.

To continue to be a good article, it should be expanded to include a full description of the 2022 reception and experiment as good articles should not have any issues related to that. The creator of r/place should be included as well. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking around a bit to try and find the creator(s), and there only seems to be a primary source that mentions three people that were involved with programming it and describing how they managed to get it to work [1] at this external link. Also I would not be considering delisting this article yet as there are not many reliable sources out there that talk about the 2022 edition of r/place yet. (Especially ones that talk about differences in comparison to 2017 and reviews of it) Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

post-result, it was also missing any mention of moderation effort, which has an impact in how the resulting "cooperation" should be/would be perceived. Bart Terpstra (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current version has a lot of unreliable sources and unsourced statements. The article needs a lot of rework for the 2022 sections to be kept as GA. Skyshifter ^talk 12:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, this article does not met the stability and comprehensive criteria. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here understand GAR? It is not a !vote. People are encouraged to leave comments as if it was a GANR. If it would be a quickfail at GAN, they can suggest delisting. Otherwise, it is expected that one or more people be allowed to improve the article to affirm its status. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is this still a good article? I took a broad look at it and its prose is quite poor. The sources could also be a subject of debate, as sites like Mashable are used extensively, and Reddit itself is used as a source in some places. I don't know where non-online news sources for the 2022 section can be found, but I think lots of work is needed to replace the existing sources and expand the article so it covers the entire subject. Little information is included beyond what actually happened during the events. I don't think this article offers very much to be considered "good" in its present state CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, saw the nominator had a history of sockpuppetry and is now banned. His other good article was also astoundingly short in its review. I might want to pay that place a visit as well. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is this still a good article? - literally nobody has bothered to reassess it. Just complaining that you don't think it should be GA is not a way to delist something. Also, Featured Topics generally have around 30 days to update if there is something new to be covered, so just saying (again, just saying rather than reviewing) that the 2022 version is not yet covered enough isn't a GAR. Kingsif (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I was not complaining but simply telling why it could not be considered a GA because of prose/verifiability. I am trying to fix those issues now. But if this came across as complaining, I apologize. But now since the event has ended, there should be plenty of technology sources to fill in the information gaps and maybe fix the image bloating. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look and although still quite a lot of prose problems, the unreliable source issue has been mostly solved except for what seems like one Mashable article still being referenced. Sorry but cannot work on this article for the next few days. Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 08:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ive changed it into Kotaku source. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I cleaned up the sources and the prose seems generally good now. I would also prefer to keep only one of the color palettes to reduce image bloating, but the article seems to be in decent shape now CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the lead can be better and its sourced content should be moved at the overview section. I think overall is fine. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What people seem to forget is the difference between GA and FA. This article passes the Good Article Criteria. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]