Talk:Alice Butler-Short/GA1

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

Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 04:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio

 * ✅ Earwig's tool doesn't pick up anything too bad. There is this article with a high percentage (48%) but it was written well after the Wikipedia article (cf. this revision from a month earlier).

Stability

 * ✅ Was moved from a previous title ("Virginia Women for Trump") a little over a month ago, but doesn't seem to have had any edit wars or big disagreements over scope or content.

Content

 * ✅With respect to NPOV specifically, it doesn't seem to be a huge issue here. For the most part, she is quoted straightforwardly regarding her opinions. If someone agrees with them, I imagine they would find it flattering, and if they disagree, I imagine they would find it damning.


 * ❌ Regarding the content, however, this article is rather strangely structured and very confusing -- which I suppose is somewhat explained by the fact that it was originally written about the political group and moved to a new title afterward). It is mostly built around minor quotes and passing mentions from a hodgepodge of sources. This source, for example, seems to just quote a couple lines from a video she was in. This is certainly a reliable source, but it doesn't say a whole lot about Butler-Short specifically (although it does have a big photo of her in it). This article gets her name wrong (it says "Alice Butler-Smith"), so it doesn't seem particularly worth mentioning. This source is a tweet. This source is a tweet. This source doesn't even mention her at all. "where he said there were "very fine people" among the neo-Nazi crowd" is uncited.


 * ❌ The article itself is written in a WP:PROSELINE style, jumping from one event to the next without any real attempt to connect them. It goes into extreme detail, quoting her on seemingly-random political scandals -- this seems to mostly be an artifact of the thin availability of sourcing (i.e. she was only mentioned in the news when something outrageous was happening). Her entire personal life (between the years of 1943 and 2021) is covered in about a hundred words, whereas a single comment she made about tearing down a statue is given 84. The fact that Roger Stone once showed up to an event she held is given 15. These things might be relevant for an article about the political group, but in an article about its leader, I can't see the relevance or notability.


 * Even the group itself, the former subject of this article, is not covered in anything resembling adequate detail. We learn that it was founded in October 2015, and then we hear a bunch of of Alice's opinions about politics -- how many people were members of this group? How many people are members of it now? Is it even still around? Did they do anything besides hold a single event and make a bunch of posts on the Internet? If so, we don't know, because the article doesn't talk about these things. Although it alludes to "VWT events" once, it doesn't mention anything about what these events were, what happened at them, et cetera (although we know that Rabia Kazan and Roger Stone each showed up to one of them -- maybe the same one -- who knows?)


 * ❌ There are other concerning issues as well: "she does not accept Joe Biden as the next legitimate President of the United States" is written in the present tense, although she died almost a year ago. Phrases like "spoke out against", "made it clear", "praised Trump's remarks", et cetera are vague and unencyclopedic.

Conclusion
Overall, due to the paucity of usable sources, I strongly suspect there might not be enough to write an article with (beyond perhaps a short stub), and that this person/group may not be notable. I don't do this often, but I am failing this GAN due to a variety of serious issues (lack of adequate sourcing, focus, and unclearly defined scope). You hate to see it -- I wish you luck in other nominations. jp×g 04:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)