Talk:Sanctioned Suicide/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, I'm going to redoing this review. Comments will be coming soon. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Images

• Infobox image doesn't meet threshold of originality
• 'File:Pulitzer2018-megan-twohey-20180530-wp.jpg' I reverse image searched this and every instance I can find for this image is after the upload date on commons.
• All image rights are in order.
• Caption for the Logo is needed
• I'd love to see Alt text for each one but this isn't a requirement.
• What contribution does File:Lori Trahan, official portrait, 116th Congress.jpg provide to the page? Additionally, it's never cited in the wiki article itself that she was one of the writers.

Sourcing

• I'm not a big fan of using Reddit as a source. I can't find anything explicitly against WP:ABOUTSELF mentioned here. I'll leave it for now but still going to draw attention to it in the event you find a better source.

• I do think it is within the bounds of WP:ABOUTSELF—the two pieces of information coming from there being the date and the specific rule the subreddit violated. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

-I know a few people are going to be watching in on this review so please leave a comment if you have any ideas.

• I've manually checked all the sourses, they are all still live and most are archived. I do not have a NYT subscription and for some reason my paywall bypass isn't working. I'll have to take some of it on good faith.

@Etriusus: If you reload and press the "x" button in time, you'll be able to access the article without being paywalled (I know reloading while inside the "reader view" on Firefox also works). Just FYI. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Drat, I messed up the ping twice! Third time's the charm... @Etriusus :3 F4U (they/it) 21:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Copy-vios

identified 45 people who died by suicide after spending time on the website Word for word from another source, close paraphrasing at least

Pretty sure that was added by a blocked sock. I've rephrased it now. I had been thinking of rephrasing that sentence anyways because "after spending time on the website" felt too colloquial. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

the site was removed from online search results in Germany.

I'm gonna be honest, I think that's too simple of a sentence for it to be close paraphrasing. Could you provide a suggestion as to how I might rephrase that?

So, I went back and reread the sentence, I actually misread it the first time and thought it was copied wholesale. Yes it is very close to the original but I agree that it's likely short enough. Leave it for now, I might change the prose a bit myself. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 20:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Many U.S. states have laws against assisting suicide, but they are often vague, do not explicitly address online activity, and are rarely enforced.

Same sock. Fixed. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Earwig mainly tags simple phrases, and proper nourns

I've made a number of checks. I'll continue to make more as we go along.

Misc

No concerns about stability

Prose

• While MOS:CITELEAD is generally a good rule of thumb, I recognize this is a controversial topic and won't hold you to it.

I have already removed as many unnecessary citations as possible, but I do believe the rest are, at least for the moment, necessary.

• 'unrestricted ' does this really work here? It is restricted, even if its by external factors. Maybe change to 'controvertial'

Hm, this was a concern brought up before and I do agree to an extent that it can give off the impression of the website being wholly unmoderated. At the same time, I feel that it needs to be made clear that the website allows discussions on suicide, including promotion of suicide, to go on unrestricted (since that is what gives the website notability). :3 F4U (they/it) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U The issue with 'unrestricted' is that it implies a lot more than there actually is, it boarders on inaccurate information. 'unmoderated' will work better, same with 'controversial'. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 20:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Etrius I think "unmoderated" is significantly worse than "unrestricted", as that's actually false. Would open work? (Also, I still don't quite understand what it would imply about the site) :3 F4U (they/it) 21:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U Open would work fine. The reason I dislike the term 'unrestricted' is that the site is very much restricted, a handful of countries have banned the site. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, I get your concern now. Changed to open.

• The forum was founded in 2018... Sentence is confusingly worded. I recommend splitting it into two sentences.
  • I've kept it as one sentence, but re-ordered it to prevent the clauses from being confusing. Let me know if you still think it should be split. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• drawing over 10 million page views in the same month reword to 'and received 10 million page views that same month'
  •  Done
• "intense" WP:PUFFERY
  • When attempting to describe the near universal condemnation of the site, I used a word describing the sharpness of the criticism, rather than its prevalence. I've replaced it with widespread.
• "found dozens more" can you give a specific number?
  • No I cannot. That's what the source states: The Times has since identified dozens more deaths, including several young teenagers. I actually accidentally tried to remove it way back when it was added because it seemed strange to add a vague figure, but its also the most recent/highest figure reported by the NYTimes to date.
• So the lead is only meant as a board overview of the page, you mention the site's founding by Diego Joaquín Galante and Lamarcus Small but don't bring it up in the body of the article.
  • In the first paragraph of the body, it states: On March 14, 2018, r/SanctionedSuicide was banned for breaking Reddit's rules on the promotion of violence, prompting Galante and Small to create the site later that month.
• As of September 2022, the forum has over 25,000 members, drawing over 10 million page views in the same month. Although the forum frames itself as a "pro-choice" suicide forum, the forum has been widely described as pro-suicide. None of this is brought up in the body of the article either. See MOS:LEAD
  • Regarding the user count, that is something I would consider basic facts, which MOS:LEAD states is allowed to only appear in the lede. I've addressed the other concern.
• Galante and Small describe themselves as incels and have been found to run a number of incel and manosphere related forums where members condone, downplay, or advocate violence against women. Oof, serious WP:POV issues, describe this more passively. Such as saying "...related forums where members' activities have been described as, condoning, downplaying, or advocating..."

I get that the Buzzfeed source comes out no holds barred against them, but unless Galante, Small, or SS explicitly say this, it's WP:UNDUE and WP:POV to outright say this as fact.

I've made the changes (mostly to match the way the incel article is phrased), but I'd note that this is also something pretty much entirely reiterated in the Washington Post and the CCDH report. I've also removed "have been found to" as that was unnecessary phrasing. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• "disproportionately" Change to "Substantially"
  •  Done I think I've seen "disproportionately" be used as a peacock term too often in other publications that I forgot what it originally meant lol.
• "An April 2023 study" be more specific
  • Probably shouldn't have used the date as the identifier...but I wasn't exactly sure what to mention (take a look at the doi). I've mentioned the publisher for now, but please do let me know if it should be changed.
• " informal survey" more specific please, if able
  • Most members reported that they had experienced mental illness and were 30 or younger, according to a survey last year by the site...About half were 25 or younger, the survey showed; like Daniel, some were minors. [1] This is all we know
• "would be unlikely to be let in" Let into what? I assume the site.
  • Mhm. Rephrased to better represent the source.

Comment: Okay, that'll be all for my first pass. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U I've given the page a second pass, I've made some minor edits, please review them when you can. At this time I can't find anything more within GAN criteria. I will pass the page momentarily, please give me a sec to get the templates set up. On a personal note, thank you for being so responsive and letting me do this review piecemeal. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Comments by RoySmith

I'm not sure how to best do this, so I'll just leave my comments in a separate section.

• I think we should delete the image of Megan Twohey because it fails MOS:PERTINENCE ("Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."). Having a portrait of Twohey doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the main topic of the article.
• Same comment about the photo of Lori Trahan.
• If we could find photos of the site's founders, those would be worth including.

RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Even if there were public domain photographs, my understanding is that it would likely be an issue wrt personality rights, though I'm not knowledgeable enough on this. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Responses (2023-07-22)

I've addressed all the comments so far and added strikethrough to them.

• I removed the two images. Those were recent additions (recent as in following the recent sockpuppet GA review) and I get how they might be misleading.
• I didn't realize that there wasn't alt text on the screenshot image actually. I've done that now. Also added a caption for the logo.
• Question Under the section Galante and Small, it states The incel communities run by Small and Galante promote the "blackpill", a misogynistic and biological determinist ideology that commonly condones or advocates for suicide or mass violence. The second half of that sentence (in red), is cited to the following sentence:

Those who believe in the blackpill tend to adopt violently misogynistic beliefs about the nature of women, particularly with regard to their sexual behaviour. They also tend towards nihilism, with many incels considering or advocating suicide or mass violence as the only ways out of their predicament.

This sentence was added by the blocked sock I previously mentioned, and I was unsure whether it would fall under WP:OR (or is just plain UNDUE) when it was added. Now that I have eyes on the article, I wanna ask: does the sentence appear appropriate? :3 F4U (they/it) 22:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U I agree that it would be WP:OR. Cut the sentence. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Removed. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.