Talk:Extremely online/GA1

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

Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 10:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

 * Events and phenomena can themselves be Extremely Online;, I thought you already said so by saying above a person or subject.
 * ✅ Fixed. jp×g 23:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * latter half of the 2010s (...) increasing prevalence and notability of Internet phenomena in all areas of life. What made it so relevant now and not pre-latter-half?
 * Most instances of the phrase appear specifically in reference to Twitter, which only reached ubiquity in the 2010s, and sources are in consensus on it having emerged around 2014 or so. Most if not all of the phenomena referred to in the article (constituting basically all use of the phrase in news media) took place in the late 2010; I can find a more solid citation for this if you want. jp×g 23:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Extremely Online people are interested in topics "no normal, healthy person could possibly care about",, did you forget a "that"? And I'll personally object to that, because I believe I'm Extremely Online but I'm not interested in dubious topics. You also didn't use "are described as", and you stated it as a fact.
 * ✅ I was conflicted about this while writing. There are only so many times that "described as" can be in a paragraph before it starts to get unwieldly, and this is something that sources aren't in disagreement on. I have added inline attribution, but it seems very awkward. jp×g 23:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Background

 * [9], the information about the dirtbag left doesn't quite fit with the article on the wikipedia, surely the show didn't have a different meaning?
 * I'm not sure what action is recommended here. The Guardian article I'm quoting from says "the Dirtbag Left, a coterie of underemployed and overly online millennials who were radicalised by the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis, have no time for the pieties of traditional political discourse"; our article on them talks about their "left-wing politics that eschews civility in order to convey a left-wing populist message". These seem to be in general agreement: is there a disconnect between them, and if so, what would be a better thing to say? jp×g 18:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems I misread, I apologise.


 * What blackpilled means?
 * ✅ This seems more in scope for Doomer, which at a glance could definitely do with expansion. In the meantime I can add some explanation in this article. Explanatory reference added, with relevant quote. jp×g 23:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * and the doomer's "blackpilled despair" combines with spending "too much (...)", combined?
 * This is deliberate: it combines, in present tense, since doomers continue to exist (as does the dirtbag left and alt-right). jp×g 23:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I don't feel "combines" is grammatically correct here. I feel it should be is combined. Editoneer (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Okay, I have changed it.


 * eclectic, what is ecletic?
 * ✅ Linked to Wiktionary entry. jp×g 23:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

People and phenomena

 * What is Wint
 * ✅ Don't know why that was there, fixed. jp×g 23:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In the shown example, pointing directions at the audience isn't encyclopedic.
 * ✅ Fixed. jp×g 23:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * have described as Extremely Online, have been?
 * ✅ Fixed. jp×g 23:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization
Generally an article's capitalization style should be reviewed with respect to WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Since sources don't usually cap "extremely online" (when they use it in a sentence in the sense meant by this article), we should be using lowercase in Wikipedia. I realize JPxG disagrees, but the open RM suggests that this should have been fixed before this could be a Good Article (caps for emphasis). But Editoneer already flipped that bit, it appears, so we're addressing it in arrears. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)