Talk:4chan/GA1

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

Protonk comments

 * Images: Some troubles:
 * Image:4chan_front_page.png needs to be reviewed or further justified given its disputed fair use tag. I suggest obscuring the images in photoshop or taking a new screenshot.
 * There's a new image up - thanks Kip Kip (see below). —Giggy 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:I move away from the mic to breathe in.jpg. I'm not sure this fair use rationale is justified, but it isn't a major problem.  Reasonable minds could disagree on this subject.
 * Hmm, yeah, I suppose I should ask for some more comments on this if I ever go for FA. —Giggy 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would left justify the Pflugerville threat image to distinguish it from chocolate rain.
 * Hmm... then it would be directly under the section heading, which would look a bit awkward with the text shoved to the right (and there's something in MOS about that I think). —Giggy 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably right. I don't know to be sure.  Either way, it looks connected to the chocolate rain pic as is.  Not a big deal, really. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The rest are fine.


 * Sources: As is the case with most new media articles, we rely on what we can get. In this case, that is passing mentions by journalists, coverage on internet sites and very limited/biased coverage elsewhere.  You might be interested in listening to this talk by Julian Dibbell on 4chan/Project Chanology/Anonymous.  The sources that are used are footnoted in a consistent manner and probably (given the nature of the sourcing) presented in the most economical fashion.  Sources (where I have checked) verify the text.


 * Style: Some comments:
 * The footnote in the lead regarding creation date can probably be moved down. IMO, lead footnotes should be there if a particular summary of a point below is contentious or it the lead contains a particular statement or wording of a statement (or a quote) that will not be repeated below.  The guardian quote is a good example of a footnote in the lead that works well.  Not so the creation date.
 * The creation date isn't noted elsewhere in the article, so I moved the ref into the infobox so it's somewhat out of the way. —Giggy 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikilinks follow WP:MOSLINK in the main. Remember to remove some wikilinks that were previously linked (Anonymous is linked multiple times) unless context dictates it.
 * I could two links to Anonymous (group) (excluding see also section); one in a section related to said group, the other talking about a news report about said group (though I've removed the second in favour of main). There was also one link to Anonymity. Looking through for other stuff. —Giggy 08:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Format: the format is kind of a mess.
 * The section on Media attention reads like a laundry list and doesn't move from point to point very smoothly. I would recommend breaking this section down into two major sections: controversies and memes (generally).  The Hal turner, Jake Brahm, and Pflugerville High School sections (for example) do not really belong under the same heading as "Chocolate Rain".  Sure, both resulted in media attention (otherwise we might not be writing about them), but that is not a very meaningful category to place them in to.
 * the project chanology section should be moved out of the media attention section and into the 'history' section, as should the section on moot's identity.
 * Remember, not everything has to follow the 'default' format. If the site is 5 years old, maybe "History" isn't the right name for it.  Using that name sort of pushing contributors away from including content that might logically be placed there.


 * treatment of the subject: Overall this is fairly good. The layout section does a good job summarizing important comments about /b/'s content and perception of that content.  The voice of this article is fairly neutral and the scope of coverage is sufficient to contextualize the subject.

Overall this article is good. I am placing it on hold, pending some major layout changes and changes to the images to clarify fair use status. In order to pass this article ought to: Alternately, you could convince me that I'm totally wrong about the whole thing and I might change my mind. :) Protonk (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fix the image tags (this is a dealbreaker, image tags = no Ga status) Done. Thanks Kip Kip. Protonk (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * change the formatting such that the sections are more logically broken down and the article does not read like a laundry list.

Otter's comments

 * The site was down for a week due to an attack, this didn't get any media attention and seems trivial. Could be generalised into the site is a frequent target of hackers or similar.
 * That's true, though surprisingly (since it seems some journalists live on the site...!) there was no RS coverage of the recent DDoS. Or of anything else (at least, I haven't found any). Not sure if I should just remove it (it was partially kept in to prevent OR postings while the attack was taking place). —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Chocolate Rain; "were posted on 4chan on July 11, 2007." this source is 4chanarchive.org why is this date significant? is there any proof this is the first time it was posted?
 * The date is somewhat significant as, prior to it, "Choclate Rain" was just another song on YouTube. As far as I can gather that is the original posting, considering some of the stuff on it has made its way onto motivational posters across the internet. (See here for what 4chan archive is; it's basically the most reliable way to cite 4chan threads (since they're deleted off the original site, and only selected threads are archived).) —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as you can gather is originial research?--Otterathome (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how 4chan took part in the attack along with other sites against ebaumsworld and didn't get significant media attention, it seems trivial for it to be mentioned in the lead.
 * Played around with the lead a bit; better? —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does 'moot's identity' need to be under media attention? an interview isn't really what I call media attention. might just be better merging under history heading
 * (See comments below on restructuring of the article format. —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
 * The 'Internet memes' all seem jumbled up, why does Chocolate Rain deserve a seperate section while lolcats and rickrolling just get mentions?
 * (See comments below on restructuring of the article format. —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
 * The KTTV Fox 11 news report doesn't mention 4chan, so is a slashdot article reliable enough to back it up that it was a report about 4chan? A decently reliable source is needed or the entire section could be considered unsourced.
 * The Slashdot piece in question was published by Rob Malda, the founder of Slashdot. I consider him reliable in this context (but I'm happy to discuss). —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Protonk on the images. In the screenshot I would suggest blurring the images with an unknown source or even replacing them with free images.--Otterathome (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (See above; this has been resolved. —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
 * The lead says users took part in project chanology, then the header for chanology is "Links to Project Chanology" - they are either linked to it or took part, which is it?
 * Clarified lead as part of an above point. —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merging all of the meme's into two paragraphs under Internet meme's section may be suitable. Completely agree with Protonk comments on the Media section.--Otterathome (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Images
I've edited the the front page image so the other images aren't shown--Kip Kip 18:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! —Giggy 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on article layout
Okeys, been thinking about this a bit, and have come up with the following for the table of contents... let me know what you think. * 1 History * 2 Layout o 2.1 /b/ * 3 Anonymity * 4 Media attention o 4.1 eBaum's World attacks o 4.2 NFL bomb threat hoax o 4.3 Hal Turner o 4.4 "Chocolate Rain" o 4.5 KTTV Fox 11 news report o 4.6 Pflugerville High School terrorist threat o 4.7 Melbourne gun threat o 4.8 Links to Project Chanology o 4.9 moot's identity o 4.10 Google Hot Trends subversion * 5 See also * 6 References * 7 External links
 * Current format

* 1 Formation o 1.1 moot                  (Was the moot's identity section + anything else about him...) * 2 Layout o 2.1 /b/ o 2.2 Anonymity             (Include "Links to Project Chanology" section here too?) * 3 Memes                         (Big 3 are in chrono order. Maybe include a little intro before lolcats) o 3.1 Lolcats o 3.2 Rickrolling o 3.3 "Chocolate Rain" o 3.4 Other memes           (Anything else in RS...) * 4 Controversies                 (Neutral section title? I'd prefer media attention.) o 4.1 Internet attacks      (Hal Turner, eBaum's World, KTTV(?), Google Trends) o 4.2 Threats of violence   (Pflugerville, Melbourne, NFL threats) * 5 See also * 6 References * 7 External links So, tell me what you think. —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed format (please discuss below)
 * Looks good. I like media attention of controversies because only some of the attention is over a controversy about the site. Protonk (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You changed the lead and included "attacks against notable individuals and organisations", the only mention of an individual in the article being attacked his Hal Turner, and the only organisation is the Google Trends abuse. Please start the restructuring of the article.--Otterathome (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the main layout change, just need to iron out any awkwardness that it introduced now. Will get to that (and the lead) ASAP. —Giggy 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems fine by me. Otter can pass it once he's good with the changes. Thanks a LOT for reworking this one.  Glad to see something related to Anon make GA.  This way when they go to delete it again, it will be all the more fun. :) Protonk (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reworked the lead; better? —Giggy 10:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Replace the chocolate rain image with a lolcat or rickroll image, and change the specific dates using 4chanarchive.org as a source (as mentioned above) then this can pass as a GA.--Otterathome (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed the dates. Not sure why you want the image changed? —Giggy 08:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the fair use concerns above, so a free image should be used instead.--Otterathome (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... there are no free rickroll images, so I through in a lolcat one. Thanks for clarifying ;-) —Giggy 01:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)