Misplaced Pages

Talk:15.ai: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:26, 11 June 2022 editSirGallantThe4th (talk | contribs)76 edits placed GA nomination on hold← Previous edit Revision as of 18:48, 11 June 2022 edit undoSirGallantThe4th (talk | contribs)76 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA|18:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)|topic=engtech|page=1}}
{{GA nominee|20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic=Computing and engineering|status=onhold|note=}}

{{Not a forum}} {{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |1= {{WikiProject banner shell |1=
{{WikiProject Robotics |class=B |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Robotics |class=GA |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics |class=B |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Linguistics |class=GA |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Computing |class=B |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Computing |class=GA |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Computer science |class=B |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Computer science |class=GA |importance=Low}}
}} }}


Revision as of 18:48, 11 June 2022

Good articles15.ai has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 11, 2022.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about 15.ai. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 15.ai at the Reference desk.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRobotics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLinguistics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconComputing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconComputer science Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit notice

Can we get a consensus to put an edit notice here on this talk page to hopefully help quell the WP:NOTFORUM and vandalism problem happening here quite a bit? There was a similar edit notice implemented at Talk:SCP Foundation (which also gets a lot of NOTFORUM comments) recently and it can be seen at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:SCP Foundation. wizzito | say hello! 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree 65.190.56.180 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

More info needed on Troy Baker scandal

I wrote some more technical background for the article, but I'm not in the loop with the Troy Baker NFT company scandal that happened in January/February. Can anyone with more information on this topic chime in? Tacotron2 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I can add some paragraphs explaining the events that occurred in greater detail. A number of Voiceverse and co.'s tweets have since been deleted, but fortunately some of the references still have screenshots of the deleted posts. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential good article nomination

In preparation for a good article nomination, I am making edits to the article to ensure that it follows the good article criteria. Please post any urgent changes that should be made. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Source on the use of 15.ai in pornography

I'm finding it very difficult to find a reliable source for the following paragraph under the "Fandom content creation" section:

Moreover, the project has been utilized as a creative tool in pornography. For instance, the Pony Zone videos is a series of erotic musical videos that heavily samples 15.ai as the vocals—the creators of such videos make frequent use of salacious emotional contextualizers and punctuation/ARPABET tricks to induce the models to grunt, sigh, and moan convincingly.

While one can find numerous examples of 15.ai being used in the context of Rule 34 with a simple Google search, not a single reliable reference mentions its use case in pornography. In the meantime, I've removed the above excerpt from the main article. Please feel free to re-add the above when a proper source has been identified. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:15.ai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SirGallantThe4th (talk · contribs) 23:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


Hello, and thank you for your GA nomination. I will be reviewing this article using the template below. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Well written throughout, though the "Resistance from voice actors" subsection seems redundant? I suppose it's not exactly the same as the mention of impersonation and fraud above it, but more information included there would be useful.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Looks good. The lead section summarizes the article concisely.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Notes and references look good.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). The other sources look reliable, but there are a few instances of potentially unreliable sources:
  1. the main website itself,
  2. the Twitter account of the subject,
  3. the 4chan link to the preservation project, and
  4. the YongYea Youtube video.

These are generally unreliable because they are self-published sources, but according to Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using self-published works, even though non-self-published sources are preferable, self-published sources can be used to support a direct quotation. (1) and (2) are used to corroborate the names of the developer and the model, so I believe this is okay (though obviously it is preferable that a non-self-published source be used, if at all possible). (3) is... iffy. Definitely peculiar to use 4chan as a source, but in this case, it is being used to support a direct quotation. I will give it a pass, though anyone else can veto my assessment if necessary.

As for (4), Youtube is not considered a reliable source (I learned it the hard way, myself) so that citation should be removed entirely, even if the publisher is generally known to be reputable.

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

2c. it contains no original research. The phrase "—as is the case with 15.ai—" in the "Copyrighted material in deep learning subsection" should be left out because the citation itself does not say this directly, and instead can be inferred by the reader.

The citation attached to the sentence explaining how the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary reduced the set of phonemes from 50 to 39 doesn't seem to explicitly support it. Is there a better citation that explains these changes explicitly instead of just linking the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary's home page?

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The main topic is addressed.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good amount of focus. The Troy Baker scandal did seem to delve into the Twitter exchange quite a bit, but considering that they were also the focus of attention in the cited articles, this should be fine.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. WP:EDITORIAL: Remove the word "significantly" in "significantly reducing the required training time". The preface "Although the application costs several thousands of dollars a month to keep up and maintain" is unnecessary, unless you find a reliable source for this.

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. A couple minor disagreements on certain things here and there from a few editors (usually about grammar and word choice), but appears stable for the most part.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images are tagged correctly. I noticed that the original link to the logo that was uploaded to Commons has been nominated for deletion since April. Is this a problem? If not, ignore this.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The images included are relevant and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. On hold. The article in its current state is close to ready for good article status, but some changes need to be made regarding the citations and neutrality.

All comments above have been resolved and the article is ready for good article status. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review. I've edited the article to address all of your comments. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Categories: