Jump to content

Talk:JerAx

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 14:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No progress regarding the nomination has occurred in the weeks since it was marked for closure.

(
)
  • ... that Jesse "JerAx" Vainikka was the first Dota 2 player to reach four consecutive Valve Major finals, achieving this milestone with Team Liquid and OG? Source: [1][2]
    • ALT1: ... that Jesse Vainikka, also known as JerAx, became the highest-earning individual player in esports in 2018 after winning two consecutive The International titles with OG in Dota 2? Source: [3]
    • ALT2: ... that Jesse "JerAx" Vainikka auctioned his Team Liquid gaming chair for €5,300 to benefit the charity, Save the Children, surpassing auction prices of signed jerseys from Lionel Messi and Wayne Rooney? Source: [4]
    • Reviewed:
Created by Jeraxmoira (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Responding to this: Per MOS:SURNAME: "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only [...] When a majority of reliable secondary sources refer to persons by a pseudonym, they should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, the Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used. For people well known by one-word names, nicknames, or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally – e.g., André Benjamin ("André 3000"), Jennifer Lopez ("J.Lo"); doctor/broadcaster Drew Pinsky ("Dr. Drew") – use the legal surname."
    I checked the article's refs and they all seem to use the pseudonym, at least in their titles. But if we don't want to use the pseudonym, then the surname Vainikka should be used instead of the given name Jesse. (I left this comment here, because it affects this nomination's caption.) 2001:14BA:9C40:0:2898:CC7C:F3E7:9062 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it affects the nomination's caption/hook, as I have used both his real name and his in-game name. Let the reviewer decide if the article/hook needs further clarity regarding the surname. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial review here: ALT2 seems the most interesting to me, seconded by ALT1; ALT0 is not as interesting without much esports context. Article is new enough, long enough, and written by the nominator. (Don't plan to review rest, just dropping in) Mrfoogles (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 is above the 200 character limit and needs to be trimmed. Maybe something like:
ALT2a ... that a gaming chair used by Jesse "JerAx" Vainikka sold at an auction for €5,300, surpassing prices of signed jerseys from Lionel Messi and Wayne Rooney?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about ALT2b: "... that a gaming chair used by Jesse "JerAx" Vainikka sold at a charitable auction for €5,300, surpassing prices of signed jerseys from Lionel Messi and Wayne Rooney?" Also fits within the character limit and mentions that its a charitable auction, which I think is also one of the interesting parts. Changes it from "someone really wanted this gaming chair" to "gaming chairs can be competitive in charitable auctions", kind of. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:TechnoSquirrel69, I have addressed your concerns regarding the sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, Jeraxmoira! Unfortunately, you added a reference to the Tech Times, designated as unreliable at this RSN discussion, which prevents me from approving again for the same reasons. However, since this issue seems a lot more manageable than the last one, I'll review the other criteria in anticipation of you addressing it. As an aside, I would recommend installing one or more citation highlighting scripts if you haven't already; they will help you catch reliability issues before they rear their heads.
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: I've struck ALT0 as it is phrased awkwardly and contains too many technical or specialist terms to be interesting or accessible enough to a broad audience. ALT1 is frankly on thin ice as well, as mashing the thematically unrelated facts about the subject's earnings and competition wins is making the sentence confusing. We can workshop it further, or just strike it if you prefer ALT2a and ALT2b better. The picture will probably not be running with the hook, as it's already a bit unclear at Main Page sizes and nearly impossible to make out JerAx in particular. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already use a citation highlighting script and it did/does not flag any sources in the article as unreliable, apart from the YouTube video. Based on your suggestion, I have removed Techtimes and AFK Gaming and FWIW, the facts in ALT1 are not unrelated, as most of the earnings came from Dota 2 Championships. Alt 2b seems fine to me, so I have struck the remaining. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira: I've gone ahead and removed the image as well. However, some of the sources you've introduced to replace the old ones also seem to have issues. What makes Esports.gg, Win.gg, and TalkEsport reliable? Esports.gg's about page makes no mention of editorial oversight — the typical mark of reliability for web content from Wikipedia's perspective — nor Win.gg's or TalkEsport's. This leads me to believe these are self-published sources, which are unsuitable for use in articles. Another way to demostrate the reliability of these sources was if they were used or approved by other reliable sources, which I haven't found to be the case with some quick searching. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are applying the standards of mainstream journalism to the esports field, which I feel is unfair. AFAIK, these events are not covered by traditional mainstream media, so it's unreasonable to expect a byline or editorial oversight on all the sources used. The claims made here are not exceptional ones that would require following WP:ECREE. I have added multiple sources to back almost all the claims made in the article, including the hook and have removed most of the sources you mentioned. If you're still skeptical, I would request that you leave it to an editor/reviewer who is familiar with evaluating E-sports sources/sources that aren't from mainstream news media. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to a second opinion from another reviewer, but Wikipedia guidelines do not apply differently based on the topic area. I'm not saying that any of the information here is exceptional and requires featured article–quality sources; when it comes to web content of any kind, the absolute bare minimum for source reliability is an editorial review or attribution to a subject-matter expert such as a qualified academic (which likely wouldn't apply here). It's also important to remember that the biographies of living persons policy applies to the subject of this article, and self-published sources should never be used unless they were by the subject themselves. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not self-published sources. This is how esports coverage looks. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:RoySmith, I have added two more sources to support the existing primary source.Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't fix the problem, which was The source is a video that's over an hour long. This needs a specific time index. You can't expect anybody to spend an hour and a half watching the entire video to find the statements that support the cited statement. RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, I failed to notice the reason you mentioned in the template. Instead I looked at the edit summary, which made me add more supporting references. It would have been helpful if you had also mentioned the time index issue in the DYK nom, rather than just linking to the diff. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CLOP; see this earwig report. Note it's not just the stuff Earwig highlights in red; it's the whole paragraph with trivial word substitutions, which is the definition of close paraphrasing. Normally this wouldn't be enough to reject the nom outright, but given all the other problems that have been found by multiple reviewers, . RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely rephrasing the paragraph would unnecessarily lengthen/ complicate it further. And the words on the this earwig report are team names which can only be rearranged. I believe the only issue was with sourcing, which has already been addressed. The other reviewers simply improved the Alt 2 hook and didn't identify any significant problems. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think this paragraph is an issue -- there does seem to be a debate over whether a few eSports sources are reliable, but that doesn't mean other things start being more of a problem than they would be otherwise. The Wikipedia paragraph is written somewhat differently, even if it says the same thing as in the article. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:JerAx&oldid=1243686752"