Talk:Zuby/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mikehawk10 (talk · contribs) 20:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a look-see.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Passes my copyediting eye. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I believe that this is MOS-compliant. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is a reference list at the bottom of the article that is a list of all information in the article. This is compliant with the guidelines for layout, as it correctly placed at the end of the article and it does not cause other MOS issues with its placement. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article currently makes reference to many primary sources, including a self-published sources/interview statements used in an WP:ABOUTSELF manner. When using primary sources, it's important to not engage in novel synthesis or to give them undue weight. The sentence that's a string of podcasts that he's been in, unless it has been covered in a secondary source, is eh in terms of this policy. If there are secondary sources to back it up, then feel free to insert them, but absent them it needs to go; I don't see it carrying due weight even if it's not strictly OR. It also might be worth attributing to whom and when he said specific things; noting the interview would be better in terms of how we typically use primary sources. I'd suggest something along the lines of Speaking with Ben Shapiro on The Ben Shapiro Sunday Show, Zuby said..., though obviously some equivalent phrasing would work. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	A WP:EARWIG analysis shows that there is content published on other websites, but it's entirely limited to quotations from the article subject, so there is no apparent copyright violation present. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article appears to address most of the main aspects of the topic well. It's clear from a summary of coverage that much of his coverage is related to the police incident in 2008 and subsequent political activity. There are a few areas that I suspect could be improved; he apparently has children that get no mention whatsoever in the current article, and I'm honestly a bit surprised that there aren't any reviews in the article for his music. I'm going to ask Spy-cicle to do a deep dig again; I suspect that there's something more out there on his music, though my googling abilities have not been able to find it. If the user can't find anything, no big deal, but I'd like a bit more certainty on that respect. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Also, to add on to the above, I'm seeing characterizations of his politics on (trans)gender-related issues and some music festival as being lumped together under "views". I suspect that there has to be some article out there that more generally characterizes his politics (I'm seeing a lot of coverage from Fox News and this piece in particular describes him as a "classical liberal", so I suspect that there is something more there about his politics more broadly). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC) I'm also seeing some characterizations of his following form sources like Politico. His views on coronavirus lockdowns and vaccine mandates also appear to be in a few articles I've perused. I'm putting this on hold; the views section needs to be improved substantially to better represent his politics more broadly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article currently stays focused on Zuby. The descriptions of the police incident, while highly detailed, are all pertinent to the article subject and are well-written. The "views" section needs to be improved, per my comment in 3A, and I will re-analyze focus after changes are made before a final judgement occurs. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article has no signs of recent edit warring or instability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All media (one image) is properly licensed with a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license, which is compatible with Wikipedia's license. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image is a photograph of the individual in the infobox. The caption is appropriate. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

Two questions for Spy-cicle:

1. This article is written in British English, correct?
2. I'm not seeing a lot in the article about his music. Is this an intentional choice, or are there really not a lot of sources on it?

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikehawk10, thank you for picking this review. To answer your questions:

1. Yes (I could perhaps add a template to make this clear?)
2. There is very limited secondary RS reporting regarding his music career. Most of his coverage and notability derives from the police incident (from 2008) and his views about transgender people (2019-2020). Despite this most secondary RSs refer to his primary occupation as simply a "rapper" which is where a categorisation question has lead to below. Most of sources discussing his rapping are either unreliable, primary sources (which I limited as to not seem self-promotional), or local newspapers like Bournemouth Echo which I included.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Working on the other stuff mentioned above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review @Mhawk10:, I have adjusted the article and have responded below. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Response to 2c

• I have removed the string of podcasts he was in.
• I am not sure what is wrong with using the WP:PRIMARY source for small parts of his early life. As per WP:PRIMARY, I am not interpreting it and the quote and from Zuby can be seen within the reference.

Response to 3b

• In response, to the bit on his children (the source in question [1] from The Telegraph (India) appears to be RS). However, just reading some of his tweets it does not appear that he has children: "...I said that my future daughters..." (April 2020) [2]; "When I have children, I will raise my sons to embrace their masculinity and my daughters to embrace their femininity..." [3]. The source in question uses this tweet [4] with young children (which based on this tweet [5] could just be his niece/nephews). Based on this advanced search I did, I inadvertedly discovered that he has two brothers and two sisters [6] which I have added.
• I have searched as much I as I can and I cannot find anything more that would be secondary RS that review his music (as a reference point Zuby is a rapper who has <10,000 monthly listeners on Spotify which is why his music career has only discussed minimally in local sources).
• I do remember seeing that Fox News piece [7] when researching this article. Does it consistute a primary source? As it appears to summarise the interview he was involved in? If not, happy to incorporate it.
• It is true there are small name mentions of Zuby for his views around covid in secondary RSs like Politico and The Independent [8][9] and a few other topics. But his views are only mentioned minimally, in a small paragraph, thus it adding it would be WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, that would fail the WP:10Y test. If there were more in-depth RS articles about it, it would be different.

Response from Reviewer

@Spy-cicle:

I think that the improvements were interesting and I'm personally ok with not prominently featuring the COVID views in anything more than a single sentence, but I do think that they deserve at least a non-lead mention.

Sorry but this is one I going to have to refuse: his COVID-19 views can only be found in small passing mentions in secondary RSs like Politico and The Independent, which would consistute WP:UNDUE, and be WP:NOTNEWS, that would fail the WP:10Y test.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

On the note of the lead, the lead currently gives a lot of weigh to the weightlifting video and less to the false arrest. It seems like the article has a lot more content on the arrest than on the weightlifting. If the article is properly weighted (and it looks reasonably so to me), then the lead should be modified to be consistent with due weight. There are also a few tone things that I could nitpick on; it's generally better to explicitly state what the "other side of the debate" is when referring to public controversies (such as in the lead), so as to be more accurate and precise.

I've have tried to adjust it to assign more weight to the police incident.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Better on the weight. I'd probably think a sentence from the "Early life and education" and another on the "Career" section would probably be more in line with the MOS guidelines for the lead. I should have mentioned this earlier, so I apologize for the inconvenience. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Added a sentence on "Early life and education" and another on the "Career" to the lead.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Source 33 is currently a YouTube video that's a primary source interview. His account being restored is probably good for context, but couldn't that be achieved by inserting the word "temporarily" before "suspended" in the second sentence in the second paragraph of the "transgender people" subsection of views without appealing to a Youtube interview? Alternatively, are there any news sources that reflect this?

Unfortunately, the Examiner source only states "suspended", it does not include the follow up of once his suspsention was lifted. Most other sources covering it appear to be unreliable. However, would [10] Southside magazine ("The UK's Hip Hop Culture Magazine") be a reliable enough source for the claim to remove the PRIMARY source? It also includes a mention of the song "Ok dude" he released about it.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Reclaim the net is an activist source, but it's reliable enough to support "temporary" imho (especially coupled with the Examiner source); that it was temporary seems to be a rather uncontroversial fact that could be supported with a weaker source. You'd certainly need something better for an FA, but this would be fine for a GA. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Added source.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There's also a typo in the "Early Life and Education" section. ("two brother [sic] and two sisters.") Once all the content is fine, I can do a copyedit to solve anything small with grammar and/or spelling; just let me know when you think it is ready.

Fixed typo.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

— Mhawk10 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Thanks for the response, the my reply is above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: I've responded above. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Thanks again for the response, my reply is above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle:Looks good to me. My apologies for my sudden disappearance from Wikipedia over the past month. This GA is passed. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: No problem, thanks once again. Just on a quick technical note has the GA pass gone through? As the only Legobot message I recieved said it failed [11]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: I think I botched the technical side of listing this as a GA, which is why you got the bot message. I think it's been resolved at this point and it's certainly listed on the good article list. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from others

• "Music good article nominee" yet article fails WP:NMG? It's a BLP about someone notable for two things: 1) a false arrest; 2) their views on transgender issues. Why are we GA-ing this as a music article? Acousmana 20:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Acousmana: I presume the nomination is because of the article subject's occupation. Since the request had been sitting for a while, I figured I'd try to clear it out from the backlog by giving it a review. Do you have a better category you'd like this to be placed into if it passes review (which is by no means certain, based off of my first read through)?— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Well, as I have mentioned above, the article does not exactly fit the tradional 'music' categorisation. Most secondary RSs describe him as a 'rapper' (i.e. his primary occupation) but most of his notability and coverage is not based on his career rapping instead based on 1)the false arrest; 2) his views on transgender issues. So it was either categorize based on his main occupation, put in the social/culture category (based on his coverage/notability), or put the article in the miscellaneous category. Either way, the fundamental GA criteria does not change based on the article categorisation.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"I presume the nomination is because of the article subject's occupation" more social media personality than rapper; seems actively engaging in COVID misinformation, both on Twitter and Youtube, and chatting with Tucker Carlson, is more lucrative for him. Acousmana 13:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I’ll ask again, Do you have a better category you'd like this to be placed into if it passes review? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

he's a product of internet culture, so WP:GAN#CULTURE. Acousmana 14:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. How about for you, Spy-cicle? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Acousmana is continuing to infer things from primary sources like "more social media personality than rapper", which is something not written in secondary RSs at all, something Acousmana has already done in the article's talk page. On determining an article's GAN category it should either based on a) the subject's primary occupation or b) the area in which the notability/coverage is determined from (i.e. in this case the false arrest and his views on transgender issues). For 99% of GANs a) and b) are the same so it is easy to determine where to place it, but this is not the case for this one. At the moment, I am not seeing a compelling reason to not categorize it within the topic of his primary occupation. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 08:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• subject fails WP:NMG, it's that simple, this is not a music article, so should therefore not be be under consideration for GA in the music category. The bulk of the article is coverage of: a) a false arrest in 2008; b) tweeted opinions regarding transgender issues. The rest is an attempt as profile building using whatever fluff happens to be floating about in local rags - so not even WP:RS. In terms of music, the subject is provably a non-entity. Acousmana 21:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• There is so little in the article about him as a musician that it fails to meet the "Broad in its coverage" criteria. Does he meet notability as a musician? Based on the paucity of sources, I'd say not—no reviews, no independent information about his album sales, and so on. This doesn't mean it can't be a GA at all, but his notability does, as noted, derive only from his highly problematic arrest with a bit from his weightlifting stunt. In a way, this is more in the Social sciences and scoeity topic area, but partially Law (the arrest) and partially Culture, sociology and psychology (his transgender criticism). Maybe this should go under Miscellaneous; it certainly isn't Music, but it's hard to slot it in elsewhere. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • As an executive decision on the part of the reviewer (if I'm allowed to do this; if not feel free to unilaterally overrule me), I'll consider this as miscellaneous if it passes. I'd rather not kill a potential GA for the sole reason of how to categorize it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• • I'm fine with it being Miscellaneous however that inevitably kicks the can down the road as where it wil be placed at Wikipedia:Good articles/all, as there is no Miscellaneous section like at GAN.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)