The nominator of this seems to have no major edits of the article. Does
LiteralKa, the main writer of this article, agree that it should go under a GAR/ want it to go under a GAR?
The lead contains facts such as the GNAA "an anti-blogging Internet trolling organization" that have no corespondent citations or coverage in the body. The article seems to read well with no obvious grammar issues.
Several sources are either primary sources (19,21) or are self published by the organization itself (1,2,3,10,16,24,25,36,41). 11 appears to attribute statements to the incorrect author. and 39 fails to back up any statements. Neither Slashdot(29) or blogs (20) should be used as a source. Quotes in other languages (13,34) need to be translated into English.
I tried to trim out most of the self-published sources, as of know I think the only times the group itself is being cited is for their location, founding date, president, claim of responsibility for Apple hack, and objection to the Goatsec arrest. Do you think these fits with the guideline (
WP:ABOUTSELF) or do they need to go?
Qrsdogg (
talk)
02:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)reply
I would suggest using the reference names instead of numbers, as numbers change (especially when the article is undergoing a GAR ;])
LiteralKa (
talk)
07:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)reply
There is very little about the organization itself and it reads like a list of exploits.
I've added a bit more about the organization, but it's going to be hard to include many details without using self-published sources.
Qrsdogg (
talk)
04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)reply
None of my lists of problematic sources or quotes is complete. But they should let you get an idea of the issues at hand. The citation needed tag needs to be filled in too. I am half tempted to fail this now in light of the huge citation section.
Thanks for not quickfailing it :) As I'm sure you know, this is a tough subject to find good sources on. I'll get to work on cleaning up the issues you mentioned, I bet we can really improve the page though.
Qrsdogg (
talk)
01:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Ok, I've tried to go through and flesh out the article and add some context. I think I've done most of what I can, the remaining issues I see (as of
this revision) are: two uncited passages (the one with the tag and the last sentence of the first paragraph), possible issues with self-published/reliability of remaining sources, and the section on Goatse security is a bit thin.
Qrsdogg (
talk)
00:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Yep. The Publications section is iffy due to the fact that only one author is a member and the GNAA didn't sanction the fairly normal research paper. This could be done by sunday.--
Guerillero |
My Talk00:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)reply
It appears to be a standard math/computer science paper on images. (It uses the
Lenna test image) The only mention of the organization is the email address of Garry Nigger.--
Guerillero |
My Talk01:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)reply
I added it as a citation, not a "publications" entry. Burden of proof is not on me, but I will be more than happy to assist. :)
LiteralKa (
talk)
06:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Due to some continual sourcing issues. The
BoingBoing article, third party posted
court document,
about page et al. are either questionable sources or fail
RS. The article is closer to the criteria but it is not fully there. Because of this, I am closing this review as a fail. If you have an issue with this please post on my talk page or ask for a GAR. thanks --
Guerillero |
My Talk05:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)reply