Talk:CLODO/GA2

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 18:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No images to review.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * processedworld.com (two citations)
 * This is a transcript/translation of the original manifesto/article, published in Terminal 19/84. It is verbatim with every other translation I can find. I couldn't find the original published version from Terminal, and I don't think one exists.


 * neroeditions.com -- seems to be a publisher of some kind but I can't find anything helpful on that site
 * This source is published through Nero. The author, Ivan Carozzi, is an author in this field.


 * bopsecrets.org
 * Redundant source that User:Czar already removed.


 * wikiwix.com -- you're just using this to access this document; I would link to it directly instead.


 * xavier-raufer.com (two citations)
 * This is a report by Xavier Raufer, a rather famous criminologist from France. The French wiki has a page on him and I plan to translate it eventually. He kept a full archive of his findings during his time as an investigator. He is definitely an expert in the field.


 * irp.fas.org -- you're citing this chapter, which I can't see an author of; that thesis that needs to be established as reliable, as well as irp.fas.org.
 * The federation of american scientists is the publisher. I found the author, table of content link: . The quote is rather universal to other citations so I can swap out the source out otherwise. The other citation is a single sentence that is not integral to the article as a whole. If this needs to be cut I can do that.
 * Thanks for the link. I'll leave this unstruck till I get a chance to look at what it's used to cite -- as Czar says it should be used sparingly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck; looks OK for what it's used for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * thephotographersgallery.org.uk -- and I see you're referring to Machines in Flames as a documentary in the article; one source calls it an "experimental film", and the other calls it an "experimental documentary"; if you keep this I think you have to keep some indication of it not being traditional reportage.
 * I don't see a change corresponding to this? And do we even need it? It seems like the only thing it cites is the name "Destructionist International", which we call an organization but which is only defined by this source as "Thomas Dekeyser and Andrew Culp".  I would drop the organization name, drop the source, and use the two men's names instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, looks like it got caught in Czar's and I's edit conflict. I added the names, added 'experimental' and cut the source.
 * Looks good now. I added "experimental" in the lead too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. I added "experimental" in the lead too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * landscapesurgery.wordpress.com -- generally wordpress is not a reliable source.
 * Per the Wordpress Policy: "As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions." The source in particular is from Landscape Surgery, a blog/'online magazine' published by the University of London, specifically its part of their PH.D program.
 * OK -- you're just using to cite the existence of the film and the content of the film, so no problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You're citing Le Matin (FN 8) to a clipping that someone has archived. You need to see this on a page of Le Matin and cite it to the newspaper directly; this URL can be used as a link, but you don't have a full citation as it stands.
 * FN 9 is the same; it's a little better since you have an exact date, but you need a page number, and I think you should see the paper itself, not just the clipping. You have more like this which I won't list, but the same applies.
 * Some of these still need to be fixed -- e.g. FN 8 is a cite to Le Matin but that's not reflected in the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please specify what you mean. On my end, I don't see any issue, since Le Matin is cited as the publisher. I can move the url to an archive link if that's what you mean. I did clean up some other links but I am unsure you mean on FN 8 (now footnote 7). I think Czar did some work as well, so that might be the culprit. Etriusus (Talk) 03:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean that FN 8 (referring to this version, just to be sure we're talking about the same thing) currently reads "Lepinay, Michel (May 21, 1980). Le CLODO fait brûler sa troisième bougie informatique. Liberation." The links goes to a newspaper clipping which is detached from its original newspaper, but someone has written "Le Matin 21/05/80" on it.  (Actually it looks like a "7", not a "1", to non-Continental eyes, but a "7" would probably have had a cross-stroke.)  So the real source is the newspaper Le Matin, and the cite should say that.  The link is simply a place to see the source, and is not the source itself.  FN 10 has been done correctly, for comparison. FN 12 also needs fixing.  Looking down the list I think 8 and 12 are the only ones left that are problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * FN 8 is fixed. I am confused on what is wrong with FN 12, the page says 'libé' which is short for libération. Etriusus (Talk) 00:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right; I misread that one. FN8 looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article can be fixed within the confines of a GA review, but I see the first nomination was quickfailed, and I don't want to do that to you again, so I'll let this run for a bit at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , let me know if you need a hand with tracking down sources czar  23:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not FA-quality sources, to be sure, but for the topic, these seem reasonable to me. Processed World is closer to a magazine and the article is a translated primary source (interview). The art book publisher Nero Editions publishes Not, and has an editorial staff. I struck bopsecrets.org (primary source). Wikiwix is an archive site like the Internet Archive. Its source (Sénat proceedings) is fine. Xavier Raufer edited (and hosts) the academic journal Notes & études de l'Institut de criminologie de Paris. FAS/Federation of American Scientists archives intelligence resources. This chapter is from a thesis so should only be used sparingly. The Photographers Gallery is cited as a primary source, following the preceding secondary source, which mentions it. Landscape Surgery is an academic blog. Altogether nothing troubling—just needed some citation cleanup. czar  00:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A million thanks for all the help. I more or less gave the same reply. Did you happen to get the Le Matin citation issue already? Etriusus (Talk) 01:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Etriusus, I'll stop editing to avoid edit conflicts. For the French newspapers, the Internet Archive has some extra detail (author, date) but it's unclear to me where, for example, Le Matin de Paris (1977–1987) archives might live in paper nevertheless scanned. As long as the dates and authors are added, I think WP:V is sufficiently upheld for purposes of GA criteria without need of page numbers. czar  01:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this clarifies the issues. Thank you for not auto-failing the page and giving it the time of day. I did what I could to resolve the newspaper citation issue, there is limited documentation to work with. User:Czar has been indispensable in helping resolve some issues. Etriusus (Talk) 02:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses; have struck some and will read through again tomorrow. I agree with Czar that date and (author or article title) and newspaper title will suffice for those; will look through tomorrow to see what that leaves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thankfully, most of the information without a verifiable citation per the above criteria was largely redundant/covered in other sources. I believe I've cut all the offending sources. Etriusus (Talk) 02:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

A couple more responses and strikes above. I'll read through next and post any further issues here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I've copyedited a bit rather than note changes I think are needed; let me know if you think I screwed anything up.
 * I think we should give the original French where it's CLODO's words -- either in the article, or perhaps in a footnote. This applies to the charcoaled slogans and to the statement they released.
 * So the quotes in question from Terminal 19/84 are from the translation by Maxine Holz in Processed World. The original French does vary somewhat but I'm deferring to a professional translator over what my limited French can do. There was one quote I could not find, and since the original archived French version doesn't seem to exist anymore, I am unsure if it is possible to find that quote. Any idea on how to possibly track down the original?
 * Not sure what you mean here -- I'm fine with keeping the translations you have; I was just suggesting that you add a footnote that gives the original French wording. Are you saying there is one quote that is unsourced, or one quote for which the translation is unsourced? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Disregard, I fixed it. Etriusus (Talk) 00:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "CLODO placed emphasis on the implications and intentions of technological advancement": does this really add anything? It's vague and has already been covered in the previous sentences in that paragraph.
 * Cut


 * Why is the manifesto not in the "Ideology" section?
 * Take a look


 * "Since December, 1983, CLODO has no longer been classified as 'active'" -- I don't think this is phrased accurately. They are not classified as active, and they were last active in December 1983, but I doubt that in January 1984 they were classified as inactive.
 * The source says 'The Committee for Liquidation of Computers has not been active since 1983.' Clarified


 * "CLODO's attacks never achieved major political victory": what could be meant by "victory"? Influence on politics?  It's not clear what a victory could have looked like so this sentence doesn't mean much.
 * The source also uses 'political victory', while it likely implies a political change in the form of neo-Luddism, it's hard to say. I've cut the phrasing and just kept the point about heightened awareness.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Good work on fixing the problems with this; I think this is now GA quality. Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)