Talk:11B-X-1371/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 04:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

: 1a Regarding 2nd sentence of lede, punctuation is our friend. Synopsis: too many "it"s- "it appears to be better lit"- what is it, the figure, the building or the picture? Per WP:LQ place punctuation outside of quotes. Per WP:SEAOFBLUE remove Spain. Rework first sentence of last Parker para to remove brackets; best to break it up since it's too long. Categories should be alphabetized. 1b   WP:LEAD- intro should summarize article. Lede talks about The Ring, but the body never mentions it. Probably move the analogy further down to History if there's nothing else to say.
 * Per WP:CATDEF: "... the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." As far as that thing about The Ring goes, I had it in there originally to support one of the proposed DYK hooks when I did not know how long the finished article was going to be. Obviously that's no longer an issue, and I see it has been moved into the body. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Normally" doesn't mean they must or should. I don't think that was worth undoing, and don't see a great deal of logic in the subjective significance you assigned to the categories.
 * Normally people don't insist on their preferred category ordering during GA reviews since there's no reason for doing so. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * However, more important is this: is having "whose title was derived from the plaintext of a base64 string written on a DVD sent to GadgetZZ.com" in the very first sentence really the most notable/interesting/readable thing about the video that'll grab readers, or should it be moved further down in the lede? Ribbet32 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved to the next sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  2a  Review pending 2b  Review pending 2c. Review pending 2d. Checks free, aside from mirror  :  3a. Covers pretty much what I knew of the video, in a sensible sequence- video, history, interpretations. Aftermath- anything since 2015? Any cultural impact? Are people still talking about this? 
 * As far as I know nothing new has happened since Wright was identified as the video creator early in 2016. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

3b. Not a lot off topic  . 4. "disturbing" in lede- inherent in tortured and mutilated anyway. "unknown origin" in lede- some will claim it's proven, so maybe unconfirmed, uncertain or unproved? What's the logic of some of the See also entries? The Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion has nothing to do with this video.
 * ✅ I think someone else added the Max Headroom thing back when the creator and purpose of this video were unknown. Once that changed there was less in common. I also removed creepypasta as too broad other than "something that got enough attention on Reddit to have its own sub and creeps people out". Cicada 3301, however, still seems sort of relevant (but of course per WP:SA it needs an explanation) Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Daniel, "initially unknown" implies it's now known, which shifts the POV the other way. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see Magic took that out of the lede; I have put in a sentence about how there was no claim to authorship in the video at the end of the first graf, which should be more neutral and sets up the next two grafs of people decoding it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

. 5. No edit wars taking place  6. Photos are free or attributed. You could prob also show what a historical plague doctor looked like.
 * Criterion 2 review Thank you Daniel Case and MagicatthemovieS for your work in addressing my initial concerns. I have now had a look at the references. Normally WP:LEADCITE would be a concern, but in this case the subject's history is so obscure and contains potentially defamatory details, so this is acceptable.
 * Per 2b, I'm weary of the Facebook wall ref. We have a Template:Cite tweet, but no Template:Cite Facebook.
 * Generally because that can easily be handled by cite web. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We're both getting needlessly argumentative here when we shouldn't be. We're not opponents in this GAC. The point was RS; but the question is now moot. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Per 2c, tortured and mutilated women in lede: Ref refers to "a woman being strangled, a disemboweled body, and other graphic scenes"- so that's one woman being tortured, no word on whether the mutilated body is female. Refs 1 and 2 are duplicates. The "creepy, unsettling, The Ring" bit verges on WP:WEASEL, attributing those opinions to "Viewers" when they should be attributed to "Slate journalist Lily Hay Newman". Washington Post does not support assertion "pointing to his initials watermarked in the video". Ribbet32 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Daniel, what's your opinion on this new Popular culture bit? The one-point list seems pointless. Maybe it could be tucked under History or Interpretations? Or removed altogether?
 * Per WP:IPC, I removed it entirely. Knowing that it was in a documentary doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding, anymore than a mention in the documentary that there's a Wikipedia article on it would add anything to that documentary. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, if this is passed, is it your preference it be listed under Film, where it was nominated, or Internet culture? Ribbet32 (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's your choice; I don't care either way. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)