Talk:Metaverse/GA1

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

Reviewer: UnidentifiedX (talk · contribs) 15:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello! The GA assessment will now begin, please allow 3-5 days for the review to be finalised.

 Comprehension:

Verifiability:

Comprehensiveness:

Neutrality:

Stability: Illustration:



Comments
Hello! Unfortunately this article has been flagged for copyright infringement by Earwig. You have failed to cite this source or attempt to reword the sections. Under the WP:GAFAIL, this article has subsequently failed section 2. If you have reworded these mistakes, please submit another GA request for a reassessment. Further information can be found here: Report


 * Resubmitting with note that the source is actually plagiarised from this Wikipedia page and not the other way around. I personally wrote the majority of the content that has been often word-for-word lifted from here, I'm sure some cursory archive.org digging will affirm this. BrigadierG (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * So uh, this is rather problematic. The Wayback Machine has actually not archived the page this article allegedly ~85% plagiarises, impossible to see edit history. I'll instead defer to several reasons that make it very likely that my claim about non-plagiarism is credible:
 * It's not a mystery who wrote it. Feel free to do a wikiblame, the contributions that have been allegedly plagiarised are spread across several users, including myself, @Mewnst @Grayfell and others. It'd be strange if we all plagiarised the same article.
 * Quality of "plagiarised" source is really very poor and includes numerous spelling errors ("Despite what Zuckerbegr says")
 * Said site would not qualify as a reputable source on wikipedia, they are tiny - not even indexed by the Wayback Machine
 * BrigadierG (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Search-engine-optimized spam sites ripping content from Wikipedia is nothing new. I concur with your analysis of the claimed plagiarism.
 * Regarding the GA evaluation, I don't think this page warrants a GA status. The high visibility of the metaverse is still a new phenomenon, and many good sources that productively analyze the topic have yet to be made or have not surfaced above the advertising deluge and think pieces. The existing literature on metaverses is typically poor quality, even when from reliable sources, and only so much can be done to balance it all out. Much of the well-sourced material of this page is in the "Criticism" section, and it's not balanced out well by substantive descriptions of the subject matter because most of those, as of today, are churned out by public relations hacks. That said, it's been a few months since I've dug in to this, I'll check out some newer media. Mewnst (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that "cryptolife.report" produces any original content. The articles I looked at are paraphrased from other articles on the web (typically unreliable crypto outlets such as Coindesk). For individual news articles, this is often with credit as a "source", however the Metaverse overview this article is supposedly plagiarizing is not formatted in the same way and doesn't provide any author or source info. Due to the sites behavior, as well as the lack of attribution to the overview, it is clear to me that this Wikipedia article is the main source for the 'cryptolife.report' article, and not the other way around. As Mewnst mentions, this type of churnalism is too common. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. The plagiarism has been ruled out, but the ‘neutrality’ section is still an issue. UnidentifiedX (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to be clearer about which way you feel the article is exhibiting poor neutrality? We've tried to make sure that this article adheres to WP:DUE with regards to how much attention each major metaverse project is given respectively, and to balance the competing definitions regarding "a metaverse" vs "the metaverse". I'm not looking to litigate the GA review per se, just try to understand the main ways you think the article could become more neutral. I think this is a different criticism to Mewnst as an NPOV problem rather than verifiability. BrigadierG (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)