Talk:AXXo/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. This is a very interesting article. However, I have some major reservations about it that perhaps you can clear up.

Are the sources reliable? Some of them seem to be forums or other unreliable sources. Some do not seem to contain any relevant information, e.g. http://www.zipile.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20323
The article seems very speculative. AXXo is "an individual or group..."; "aXXo's identity is not publicly known, due to pending legal action" - no date attached to when or whether this legal action will occur. The aspect that aXXo may be a group is not explored.
Language like "A news article clip supposedly from The New York Times suggested..." is vague; "supposedly" is not a good word to use in an encyclopedic article.
It is unclear whether this "individual or group" is still operating as the last incident you report is last year.
The organization of the article makes it difficult to follow a timeline, as you mix descriptive information in with the time sequence.
It might be helpful to have more information to orient the general reader rather than the computer geek already familiar with the issue.
Although the lead says AXXo "is the popular Internet celebrity alias", his (their) popularity and celebrity status is not explored in the article.
On another note, quotes should not be in italics as your blockquote is.

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've done a few GAs in my time but I'd like to try something new with this article; it's extremely difficult to find reliable sources on it because of its nature (computer piracy) and so we have to rely on using other means to add content. That doesn't mean using unreliable sources; rather, it means using sources that may be considered unreliable in other articles and using them here but only using them for content that makes them useful, such as the Mininova statistics page or a forum post and then explicitly stating that the content comes from a forum post. Anyways, I will go through your list now. Gary King (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and am interested in what you can do. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things like Google searches, blog/forum posts, and mininova search results, are NOT reliable sources, and cannot be used as reliable sources. For one, search engine pages are constantly changing, and even if you put a date on them, the previous search from even just a few months ago CANNOT be verified. These sources need to be replaced or this article will NEVER, EVER, become a GA (or an FA, for that matter). Dr. Cash (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at the article now. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have definitely improved things. But what about such references as http://digg.com/tech_news/The_BitTorrent_Legend_Returns_I_Am_aXXo, and http://web.archive.org/web/20080210163727/http://www.zipile.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20323, and the search engine links? References like Torrent Freak, is that an industry news source? Also, you reference a New York Times article without a citation. I don't have time now but I'll read through the article again tonight or tomorrow. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Digg link is just to show that aXXo was discussed on Digg. I've removed Zipile as the archive doesn't contain the image that we are using as a reference. TorrentFreak.com is very popular in the BitTorrent community and reports on pretty much anything that comes in and out of the community. The New York Times reference was a hoax, so there isn't a link available to the NYT website. The website that hosts the hoax is referenced, though. Gary King (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"aXXo's identity is not publicly known to protect themselves from prosecution." - not publicly know as a protection from prosecution? Or some rewording, since "themselves" implies more than one person and the number of persons is unknown and may be just one. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about using "itself"? I've reworded the sentence to state that their identity is not known so that it's more difficult for authorities to track them down. Gary King (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not follow Wikipedia:LEAD. Maybe the article could be fleshed out more if you explained more. The information in the lead is not dealt with in the main part of the article. (I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but this article must fulfill the GA criteria, since promoting it to GA might be controversial.) Also, I wonder about the organization. Should Statistics come before Identity or any explanation in the article of the subject matter? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten a large part of the lead and the article in general. I am trying to keep the lead at a decent size in proportion to the rest of the article; since the article is fairly short, the lead is also fairly short. Please take another look at it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article still falls far, far short of meeting the GA criteria. Most of its references are horribly sub-par, and barely, if at all, WP:RS. The lead is still too short and doesn't conform to WP:LEAD (as previously discussed), 'statistics' is too short and too sketchy, 'incidents' is horribly inadequate and doesn't describe the issue/person/whatever at all. In its current state, I'd say the article is a good candidate for WP:AfD, certainly not WP:GA. If it were to pass GA, I would bring it to WP:GAR immediately,... if I didn't decide to just boldly delist it,... Dr. Cash (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am slowly chopping away at unreliable sources. Gary King (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI I am still working on this. I will post back here when I am done. Gary King (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take another look at the article now? Gary King (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do the TorrentFreak links remain constant? Or do they rotate, as some news pages do?

If so, I will pass the article, but be prepared for opposition! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which link you are referring to, but all of the links are static – their contents do not change. None of the links in the article are to search results or anything that changes dynamically. Gary King (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The TorrentFreak pages don't change content, either. Gary King (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):This is a well-written article on a phenomena important to the file sharing community b (MoS): There are no obvious MoS violations
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):The references are stable and verifiy the information in the article b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable for information pertaining to the file sharing community, and include references from mainstream publications as well. I have thoroughly checked them. Although one, TorrentFreak, can be seen as pop in content and presentation, it responsibly controls its content and is judged as a reliable informant for the subject of this article and related subjects. c (OR):There is no OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):Context for the article is provided. b (focused): The article remains focused on the relevant information pertaining to the subject.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: The article is neutral in stance.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): There are no images.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Hard work has gone into making this article reliable and in avoiding OR. Congratulations! This passes GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]