Revision as of 14:46, 11 June 2022 edit2001:448a:20a2:d137:59c6:5349:e20:568 (talk) Let's draw strawberryTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:14, 11 June 2022 edit undoHackerKnownAs (talk | contribs)478 edits Undid revision 1092632459 by 2001:448A:20A2:D137:59C6:5349:E20:568 (talk)Tag: UndoNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{GA nominee|20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic= |
{{GA nominee|20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic=Computing and engineering|status=onreview|note=}} | ||
ng and engineering|status=onreview|note=}} | |||
{{Not a forum}} | {{Not a forum}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell |1= | {{WikiProject banner shell |1= |
Revision as of 15:14, 11 June 2022
15.ai is currently a Computing and engineering good article nominee. Nominated by HackerKnownAs (talk) at 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
|
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 banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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). |
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.
The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. |
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. | 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. | 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:- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Robotics articles
- Low-importance Robotics articles
- WikiProject Robotics articles
- B-Class Linguistics articles
- Low-importance Linguistics articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles
- B-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- B-Class Computer science articles
- Low-importance Computer science articles
- WikiProject Computer science articles