Talk:The Pirate Bay/GA1

GA Review

Check 1

I am checking that the article meets a few basic things listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles before I do an in depth review:

The article has sources.
The article is not clearly POV
The article has no cleanup banners .
The article doesn't seem to be the subject of any major ongoing edit wars
The article doesn't specifically concern a rapidly unfolding current event without a definite endpoint

As it meets all these very basic criteria, I will go on to do a more in depth review. (It's not a speedy fail) Anonymous101 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check 2

I am going trough the article reviewing it for all the different criteria. This review is not yet complete. Anonymous101 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are minor problems which I can easily fix I may fix them myself instead of listing them here, as there is no point in wasting the time of other Wikipedians. Anonymous101 (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues:

I'm basically listing issues as I come across them:

Please provide a reference for things with a {{fact}} tag. Anonymous101 (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm not sure that the logo is really PD. This can be used on T-Shirts ≠ "the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author." This might just be me being fussy, but I do believe this is a problem. If other Wikipedians agree this issue can easily be resolved by upload it as FU Anonymous101 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that the lead section puts to much emphasis on the 2006 raid, when, in my opinion, this is not the most important thing The Pirate Bay, Anonymous101 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the references are to non reliable sources such as logs on blogger. If possible, try and back up these claims with reliable sources. Anonymous101 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could add some free images (or maybe fair use screenshots if it can be justified per WP:FU) to appropriate sections of the article. (Maybe you could use some of the free images at commons:2006-06-03 pirate demonstration in Sweden) Anonymous101 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is appropriate, you could consider adding a criticism section to the article. Anonymous101 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only issues I identified while reviewing this article, and it is possible I may add more if I realise I missed out anything.

Anonymous101 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the image, take a look at this discussion. The Blogger references are for statements that say something like "this person posted on his blog" so the reference I think is appropriate. I don't think a Criticism section is appropriate; the article already states that they are involved in illegal activity, and a Criticism section would be fairly non-neutral even if it tried not to be. I have finished the rest. Gary King (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues remaining:

The lead section puts too much emphasis on the 2006 raid.

Anonymous101 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the raid in the lead from one paragraph to one sentence now. Gary King (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be fussy, but it would be nice if the lead was a little bit longer (per WP:LEAD). Also, after looking as WP:SPS, I do continue to have a concern about the use of blogs, as the authors of the blogs do not appear to be experts in that field. Anonymous101 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lead. Could you add {{rs}} to references that you think don't need WP:SPS? Gary King (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, nice expansion. Secondly, yes, I will add {{rs}} to references where I believe it is appropriate. Thanks, Anonymous101 (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually only one source that I needed to tag with {{rs}}. Once you have have added a source there, I will be happy to pass the review. Also, I'm quite a new reviewer so I would be interested to hear any feedback you have on my reviewing. Anonymous101 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I have replaced the reference with a reference to a Wired magazine article. Gary King (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent> Nice, just give me a few minutes for a final check before I pass the article. Also, I would really feedback you have on my reviewing to help me improve in future. Anonymous101 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well your review was pretty thorough. I especially liked your first check to ensure that the basics were good before moving on further. Gary King (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have you got any suggestions on how I could improve? By the way, I've passed the good article review. Anonymous101 (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; everyone has their own style. You're doing well. Gary King (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]