Talk:Bitcoin/GA1

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

Reviewer: Replaceinkcartridges (talk · contribs) 02:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC) This article has been nominated by User:Yoshi24517 for GA status. As someone who has not significantly edited this page, I think that it is well-written, the use of unnecessary jargon is kept to a minimum, and established citation needs little improvement.

An average wikipedian who knows nothing about Bitcoin can find meaningful content in this article. The only problem is the semi-rare edit wars. I think good article status should be granted to the page. This article should be reviewed for it through discussion.

Consideration I welcome the GA review. One caveat: Until 2 days ago the problem of edit warring pointed out above has not been 'semi-rare', but almost continuous, which made the article very unstable, thus not meeting the WP:Good_article_criteria At present, I predict a 30-day window of stability until February 11, 2015, during which an editor involved in edit warring and numerous board filings, that had kept the site unprotected until January 11, has been blocked. After this date, I predict -based on the editor's 4 year history of disruptive editing- edit warring will resume. Reviewers should keep that in mind and consider that the article, even if makes it through the review in 30 d, might be delisted soon afterwards. Disclaimer: I am a regular contributor to this page since 2/2014 and thus will not participate in the review. --Wuerzele (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thats a fair point. Realistically, that may be the sole reason this article has not been nominated for GA status sooner.


 * The GA criteria states "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." I took data from 1 September to 1 January to test this. Starting in September this article contained 16520 words. In October it contained 16982 words. It dipped in November at 14817 words and went back up to 19277 in December. In January it leveled out at 20120 words.
 * Exactly a 3600 word difference. This difference shows relatively good growth, but I can see what you mean by edit warring.


 * This is an important consideration to take into account and it may stop this article from reaching GA status.Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I did contribute a Units section. P.S. I declare my WikiCup participation. Yoshi24517 Chat Absent 21:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Just popping my head through the door, I notice as I write this there is a small edit-war about whether "Bitcoin" in a quotation should be in caps or lower case. I share Replaceinkcartridges' concern that this article may not be stable enough to pass GAN at this time, but it's his review so I'll stop the stalking and duck out here..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So...Final results? Yoshi24517 Chat  Absent 01:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Yoshi24517 I did a lot of thinking about it, and at this point it probably doesn't meet the criteria.


 * Looking at the GA criteria, the article does not meet all of them. The article does not provide broad coverage and gets to far into the weeds. For example, the etymology section is unneeded and could easily merged with the history section or introduction. [[File:Button_done.png]] Done.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another example is As protection from confiscatory policies, talking about Argentinians using Bitcoins to fight confiscatory policies is unneeded.[[File:Button_done.png]] Done.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As @Wuerzele pointed out, edit warring is a problem in this article. Therefore, rendering the article unstable and raises concerns of a lack of neutrality.


 * But, I do still agree with what I said in my original paragraph. This article has meaningful content and can provide valid information. Although it is obvious this article needs improvement. I think waiting a couple days before assigning a rating would be a good idea as suggested in the GA review guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replaceinkcartridges (talk • contribs) 02:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tagging: What do you think? If so, please promote. Yoshi24517 Chat Absent 01:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just popping in to say that I'm both a Wikipedia editor and an active follower/user of Bitcoin and its technologies. If you're looking for a neutral input from someone who understands both Bitcoin and Wikipedia's guidelines, please ping me. Good luck with the GA! -Newyorkadam (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Newyorkadam's suggestions

Alright, I couldn't resist and just took a quick read through the article. I hope you don't mind me making these comments, as it is your GAR– please let me know if you'd rather I stay out of it.
 * Section 4.7, "Declarations of death", needs a lot of work. It's literally one sentence that doesn't explain anything– it just lists different news websites calling Bitcoin dead. As a reader I'd ask, What exactly is this section trying to tell me?.
 * I think Russia should be mentioned in the Legal section– it's a large, powerful country that has taken a stance against Bitcoin. In general, I feel like the legal section is incomplete. A huge discussion point of Bitcoin is the legality of it, and the section seems too weighted on the US section. Check Legality of Bitcoin by country for reference. ✅. Yoshi24517 Chat  Online 17:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, there appears to be too similar (albeit one being much smaller) legal sections– try merging these. [[File:Button_done.png]]--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I would love to see Bitcoin at GA status and it's something I've been meaning to do–– please do let me know if you need any help. Thanks! -Newyorkadam (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
 * The article doesn't mention (what I assume to be) Bitcoin's two largest discussion forums, Bitcointalk.org and /r/bitcoin on reddit– it's in these two places that the (again, what I assume to be) majority of Bitcoin's community converges. It also doesn't mention IRC, through which Bitcoin in general, along with development, pricetalk, trading, and mining, is discussed. However, I'm not sure if these modes of discussion should be mentioned– just putting the idea out there.
 * Just a side note, not related to this GA– I can't believe there isn't an article on Bitcoin mining. We'll have to make one...
 * Does etymology needs its own section? It's only two sentences– perhaps merge it with another section.[[File:Button_done.png]] Done! --Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a leadership (or something similar) section? Might want to have the Bitcoin Foundation have its own section, considering its influence. Also, maybe discuss the Bitcoin Center NYC. I can provide pictures if needed as I've visited it!
 * Might want to discuss QR codes and Bitcoin's URI scheme, both of which are important for sending and receiving Bitcoin. However, this may be better suited in a new article like "Usage of Bitcoin" or something.
 * The top of the article does a good job with pictures, but the bottom 3/4 has hardly any– perhaps obtain some pictures of different things discussed (like a screenshot of CryptoLocker).
 * Thanks for the review, I have also briefly read through the article so I want to address all of your points.
 * Section 4.7 was most likely included as a passive-aggressive way of saying that the media has been wrong about Bitcoin for half a decade. The section is not exactly something that belongs on an encyclopedic website.
 * I agree that Russia should have a mention in the legal section. Norway is also worth a mention because it is the largest non-EU European economy.
 * I don't necessarily think that Bitcoin related forums are notable to the currency. Fourms on the Internet are always changing and are made up of members with diffrering opinions. In a few years the fourms will most likely not be relevant.
 * The wiki page on Bitcoin Mining was deleted roughly 4 months ago. Bitcoin mining is notable enough to warrant an article, it should be remade.
 * As I pointed out earlier I think the Etymology section should be merged with the history section or introduction.: [[File:Button_done.png]] Done!--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bitcoin doesn't have a 'leadership' per-say but I agree that prominent organizations deserve to be mentioned.
 * Maybe the QR codes and URI schemes could have a subsection under the Transactions section or the Buying and selling section. [[File:Button_done.png]] Done!--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing about the pictures in this article. The security section could easily have more images because malware is not protected under copyright.


 * Thank you for adding this to the GA review. All of these claims are valid to this article and should be addressed. This article currently does not meet the GA criteria but I do think it will in the future. This might be a good place to end the review as roughly a week has passed since the beginning of the review. Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Damnit, sorry for all of the edits. Repinging as I spelled it wrong–
 * I forgive you for misspelling my user name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replaceinkcartridges (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added  00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I just throw in another comment? At the moment, I'm wonder whether it would be appropriate to add jargon to this article. Now, I don't like drive-by templating, but I think sentences like "The system is peer-to-peer; users can transact directly without needing an intermediary" and "Transactions are verified by network nodes and recorded in a public distributed ledger called the block chain", up-front in the lead, don't mean anything to a layman reader who might wonder if you can use bitcoins to buy a loaf of bread in Tesco (and that's a serious point, this article is ranked within the top 100 most important articles and about 2.2 million people view it every year). That is a must fix for a GA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Final Verdict

This review has unfortunately proven the article does not meet all of the GA Criteria. Stability and broadness are currently not maintained in this article.

I have added a GA status not meet tag to this this page. If the article reaches GA criteria in the future, a new GA reassessment is welcome. Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)