Talk:Stormfront (website)/GA1

GA Review

Lead

• "ideology and philosophy, historical revisionism and self-defense." the first and suggest "ideology and philosophy" is one single theme, yet they are independently wikilinked. Why?
• "Notable for the white supremacist views of its members," Is notable correct? Or should it be "noted"?

Views and topics

• "a characterization that is contested by Don Black as an inaccurate description of most people active in Stormfront." It might be worth adding his own description in here to add more balance.
• "It is organized primarily as a discussion forum with multiple thematic sub-forums (54 in total)" I don't like the use of brackets particularly. I think if it's worthy of inclusion, it should be in normal text. This is possibly a borderline case, but I might suggest trying to re-word to lose the brackets.
• Why are the sub-fora capitalised? Why do some have ' ' quote marks?
• Difference of style between "sub-fora" "subforums" and "sub-forums". Pick one and be consistent.
• "[h]etrosexual" Is this correct? Should be heterosexual?

Character

• "A major function of the site for Black is "to provide a pro-white counterpoint to the mainstream media,"[17] – which rarely covers white separatism," why the dash?

News coverage

• Should CNet News be italicised?
• This might just be me but what's a "segregated prom"?
• "kids" is very informal. Should be children unless in quotes.

General

• Make sure all numerals and units, e.g. 4,000 comments are split by non-breaking spaces, e.g. 4,000 . I've already done that one, and spotted over nbsps, but after seeing the first, I haven't really checked.

There's nothing major to do, so I'll put it on hold for the time being. I'd just like to say that the lead and general prose is very good. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Done them all except for the numbers - could you help? - and the CNet News part (it shouldn't be capitalised because it's a website). I think the fora are capitalised because they're names, and a segregated prom is, well, a prom that is segregated (racially, in this case). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Some replies

• "Notable for the white supremacist views of its members," Is notable correct? Or should it be "noted"?" I don't understand why you removed this entirely?
• Still a difference of style between "sub-fora" and "subfora". Pick one and be consistent.
• You changed "[h]etrosexual" to hetrosexual. My concern was not with the [h] but the lack of an e, i.e. should be heterosexual.

You weren't down as the GA nominator. Is it you dealing with the GAN or is it Skomorroh? Peanut4 (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll help with the article; I have it on watchlist. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I just figured "hetrosexual" was a Wikipedia typo, so I fixed it. If it is supposed to be misspelled, we need a "sic" and a source. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo Peanut4, thanks for taking the time to review. I am nominally responsible for the GAN, but it looks like Sceptre and JP have everything covered. Is there anything else you'd like to see addressed? Skomorokh 11:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Before I go on to pass it, I want to make sure you are happy with the edits already made, particularly the changes related to the following points:

• "Notable for the white supremacist views of its members," Is notable correct? Or should it be "noted"?" I don't understand why you removed this entirely?
• You changed "[h]etrosexual" to hetrosexual. My concern was not with the [h] but the lack of an e, i.e. should be heterosexual.

I will however, keep it on hold, following the recent edit war and messages on the talk page.

While that is the case, are there any more controversies about the website. It's clearly a heated, controversial topic, but apart from the removal of the website from Google and the news coverage, there seems little to say so. Peanut4 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding hetro/hetero, this was a trivial misspelling on my part. The quote was with a captial H in the source, hence the [h]; otherwise this is a non-issue. The sources say that Stormfront is a white supremacist site, not that it is notable for the white supremacist views of its members, afaik. If there is a reference for this specific claim, that's great; if not (as is currently the case), we should leave it out as contentious unverified content. The editing disputes do not relate to this page primarily. The issue in question is one of policy; how should neutrality be weighed against mainstream opinion; the current version of the article is in line with policy (though I personally, and perhaps Sceptre would prefer less mainstream POV). It would not be proper to penalise the article for compliance with policy, I think. In short, I do not see any obstacle to GA status at present. Regards, Skomorokh 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Minor content dispute about whether this is a racist website or not.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Peanut4 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time, effort and patience. :) Skomorokh 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)