| Revision as of 05:44, 24 October 2024 editBrocadeRiverPoems (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,074 editsm →15.ai: Typos← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:08, 25 October 2024 edit undoHackerKnownAs (talk | contribs)478 edits →15.ai: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ::While is this a good point, I would also like to express the concern over the fact that many of the citations make heavy references to one Kotaku article. Although I am repeating an concern already expressed in the above talk topic, I feel that it should be mentioned in this talk topic as well. ] (]) 00:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | ::While is this a good point, I would also like to express the concern over the fact that many of the citations make heavy references to one Kotaku article. Although I am repeating an concern already expressed in the above talk topic, I feel that it should be mentioned in this talk topic as well. ] (]) 00:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::I will note, as I did on the talk-page discussion linked, that the GA approval'' very probably should have never happened''. The original COI discussion topic was never rectified and was randomly expunged from the talkpage before the article was assessed. The individual who assessed the article as good only assessed one other article as good, and that article was . It was an assessment provided by a new reviewer, after an IP editor randomly elevated the article to B Status and expunged an entire talkpage discussion about COI editing. The one who reviewed the article has done little else ] after the review, departed, and returned only to defend 15.ai from deletion and then promptly returned to the ether. Again, there was considerable activity by individuals involved in the "Pony Preservation Project" to edit this article including bragging about having their artwork featured on a wikipedia article the same artwork that is presumably the logo that was copyvio'd off the wikimedia commons and which was improperly re-added to the article. There are blatant references on the PPP thread on the archive _which was included as a source_ on the article that show users suggesting fabricating sources and showing a coordinated effort to drive the direction of the article. Given the involvement of the PPP with 15.ai and the extensive editing done by members of the PPP, it is clear ]. Given the circular nature of the sources (which were deemed reliable per ], which is dubiously applicable to this article, as the article is tangentially related to video games) and the fact that ] says that editors should be cautious about {{tq|blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance}} which the 15.ai article clearly is. If the Kotaku isn't reliable as "blog/geeky posts", that means every source that references the Kotaku article is likewise unreliable. Given that, the ] of the article itself is dubious. There are sources from Jan 2021 and then it only resurfaces in media covering a controversy of Voicesense, '''''not '''''articles about 15.ai itself. The problem with this article goes much deeper than some {{tq|bad-faith actors}} who made random edits to the article over the years. <b>]</b> 05:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | ::I will note, as I did on the talk-page discussion linked, that the GA approval'' very probably should have never happened''. The original COI discussion topic was never rectified and was randomly expunged from the talkpage before the article was assessed. The individual who assessed the article as good only assessed one other article as good, and that article was . It was an assessment provided by a new reviewer, after an IP editor randomly elevated the article to B Status and expunged an entire talkpage discussion about COI editing. The one who reviewed the article has done little else ] after the review, departed, and returned only to defend 15.ai from deletion and then promptly returned to the ether. Again, there was considerable activity by individuals involved in the "Pony Preservation Project" to edit this article including bragging about having their artwork featured on a wikipedia article the same artwork that is presumably the logo that was copyvio'd off the wikimedia commons and which was improperly re-added to the article. There are blatant references on the PPP thread on the archive _which was included as a source_ on the article that show users suggesting fabricating sources and showing a coordinated effort to drive the direction of the article. Given the involvement of the PPP with 15.ai and the extensive editing done by members of the PPP, it is clear ]. Given the circular nature of the sources (which were deemed reliable per ], which is dubiously applicable to this article, as the article is tangentially related to video games) and the fact that ] says that editors should be cautious about {{tq|blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance}} which the 15.ai article clearly is. If the Kotaku isn't reliable as "blog/geeky posts", that means every source that references the Kotaku article is likewise unreliable. Given that, the ] of the article itself is dubious. There are sources from Jan 2021 and then it only resurfaces in media covering a controversy of Voicesense, '''''not '''''articles about 15.ai itself. The problem with this article goes much deeper than some {{tq|bad-faith actors}} who made random edits to the article over the years. <b>]</b> 05:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::Per ], there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Misplaced Pages policy. | |||
| :::The COI claims don't meet ] burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships." | |||
| :::Per ], gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage. The article meets ] through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate ] once notability is established. | |||
| :::Removing talk page content followed ] guidelines for outdated discussions. If specific violations exist, they should be raised at ] rather than used to challenge GA status. | |||
| :::Furthermore, the last time ] of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability. Per ], the relevant quote is "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." ] (]) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:08, 25 October 2024
15.ai
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
Detailed concerns about large-scale COI editing and neutrality issues in this article can be found at Talk:15.ai#Concerns about this article. GA criterion 4 is thus under serious question. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- The vast majority of the current iteration of the article was as it was when the article was first accepted as a good article years ago. Much of the COI edits have been from vandals, and it's evident that the article has a major vandalism problem, the subject being a rather popular topic of discussion. I disagree with removing the GA label due to the edits of some bad-faith actors. HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- While is this a good point, I would also like to express the concern over the fact that many of the citations make heavy references to one Kotaku article. Although I am repeating an concern already expressed in the above talk topic, I feel that it should be mentioned in this talk topic as well. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I will note, as I did on the talk-page discussion linked, that the GA approval very probably should have never happened. The original COI discussion topic was never rectified and was randomly expunged from the talkpage before the article was assessed. The individual who assessed the article as good only assessed one other article as good, and that article was deleted for large amounts of copyvio. It was an assessment provided by a new reviewer, after an IP editor randomly elevated the article to B Status and expunged an entire talkpage discussion about COI editing. The one who reviewed the article has done little else Special:Contributions/SirGallantThe4th after the review, departed, and returned only to defend 15.ai from deletion and then promptly returned to the ether. Again, there was considerable activity by individuals involved in the "Pony Preservation Project" to edit this article including bragging about having their artwork featured on a wikipedia article the same artwork that is presumably the logo that was copyvio'd off the wikimedia commons and which was improperly re-added to the article. There are blatant references on the PPP thread on the archive _which was included as a source_ on the article that show users suggesting fabricating sources and showing a coordinated effort to drive the direction of the article. Given the involvement of the PPP with 15.ai and the extensive editing done by members of the PPP, it is clear WP:COI. Given the circular nature of the sources (which were deemed reliable per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources, which is dubiously applicable to this article, as the article is tangentially related to video games) and the fact that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources says that editors should be cautious about
blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance
which the 15.ai article clearly is. If the Kotaku isn't reliable as "blog/geeky posts", that means every source that references the Kotaku article is likewise unreliable. Given that, the WP:NOTABILITY of the article itself is dubious. There are sources from Jan 2021 and then it only resurfaces in media covering a controversy of Voicesense, not articles about 15.ai itself. The problem with this article goes much deeper than somebad-faith actors
who made random edits to the article over the years. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 05:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)- Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Misplaced Pages policy.
- The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."
- Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage. The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.
- Removing talk page content followed WP:TPO guidelines for outdated discussions. If specific violations exist, they should be raised at WP:AN/I rather than used to challenge GA status.
- Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability. Per WP:NTEMP, the relevant quote is "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)