Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/GA1

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

Reviewer: CaptainEek (talk · contribs) 05:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Howdy! I'm CaptainEek and I saw this page in need of a GA review. I note that the nominator User:Money_emoji has by their own admission not been very active in this article, but would like to be involved. Money Emoji: glad to have your involvement and hope ya stick around here on WP. This is my second GA review, so if I make any mistakes let me know! On cursory examination this page seems like it should pass GA, and seems to be in a stable place. It'll take me a day or two to get familiar with the article, check sources, etc. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

General Issues/Things to be fixed

 * "Adl-Tabatabai's story was then spread by pro-Trump websites" Who is adl-tabatabai? This is the first and only time they're mentioned in the article
 * He was the person that wrote a fake news article that popularized the theory. I replaced with the site that the article was published on, since it was already previously mentioned.


 * "The post, meanwhile removed by the site," Vague: When was it removed? Also reads weird
 * Done?  G M G  talk  15:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yusif Lee Jones is mentioned as facing time in prison, but the article is over a year old, that could/should be updated
 * Yusif pled guilty per the sources, but there was no apparent media coverage of his sentencing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed. We can't include the information about sentencing because PRIMARY, but we know he didn't get five years non-the-less. So it'd be sensationalist to include the information now that we know it didn't pan out.  G M G  talk  15:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The debunked section has a list of bullet points debunking individual claims. The bullet list is based solely on one NYTimes article. The NYTimes is very reputable but not sure if we should base a whole section on one article, also some of the bullet points look copied straight out of the NYT article. This also seems like perhaps too much detail/could be better summarized


 * I cut down on the section and made it focus more on the more relevant allegations.


 * "Stefanie MacWilliams, contributor for Planet Free Will who wrote an article about Pizzagate, was reported in the Toronto Star as saying, after the Comet Ping Pong shooting, "I really have no regrets and it's honestly really grown our audience.""  Too many commas/clauses here please clean up. Also it should clarify what sort of article she wrote, mainly that she was one of the people who spread the original fake news story
 * Changed to:

"Stefanie MacWilliams, who wrote an article promoting the conspiracy on Planet Free Will, was subsequently reported by the Toronto Star as saying, "I really have no regrets and it's honestly really grown our audience."" 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This sentence should be clarified that it is not true at all and merely a claim to ensure that it does not violate WP:BLP; It is also almost a run on sentence that could use reorganizing/breaking up (that contributes to the word "claim" getting lost in the morass of clauses): "On October 30, 2016, a white supremacist Twitter account that presented itself as belonging to a Jewish lawyer in New York included a display of a claim that the New York City Police Department, which was searching emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop as part of an investigation into his sexting scandals, had discovered the existence of a pedophilia ring linked to members of the Democratic Party."

I am still reviewing this article, but if you are a longtime/frequent editor of this page and are familiar with it you are welcome to respond to me or make the changes I've already outlined. I need to make a very careful read through for wording still, but also need my beauty sleep so I don't turn into Cranky Eek instead of Captain Eek :) Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was away on a vacation for the past few days. I'll start working on it now that I have the time. 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 14:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the comments in the table about the lede being too light on the debunking, I think moving the final sentence up to be the second sentence could emphasize the false nature of the CS better. Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thats a good solution, reads much better and it doesn't feel like such an afterthought. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you folks for cooperating and working on this GAR! I should be able to wrap up my review within a day or so, and will then put the review on hold status while we all work out any kinks in the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 17:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What "weird visual artifact" are you seeing? Can you screen shot it? I tried several things and I was unable to produce any combination that makes Template:Multiple image malfunction in any marked way.  G M G  talk  17:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually fixed the issue before I could screenshot a pic, the problem was with my browser cache and not with the multi-image template. Sorry bout that! Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess since we're winding down to the last few points here, the use of the document in the article is fairly standard in these type of things where there is a public document of historical significance in play. Basically, it's a prominently placed to give readers an opportunity to review the full primary source. It's more-or-less being added as media, and not necessarily as a picture. So it's not very pretty to look at, but you have to keep in mind that what's being linked to is a .pdf, even though it displays the same type of thumbnail that a photograph would.  G M G  talk  12:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is reasonable, I agree that it can stay. Just looking for some feedback/y'alls opinion on it. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the intro statement on the tweet from the so called lawyer: I didnt realize it had been workshopped before, in that case it should certainly stay as is (even tho it does read a bit wierd). I will find that archived discussion, and after a final run through this should be ready to pass GA. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I checked the archives including this and this (there are probably more discussions about it that I couldn't find, the archives are expansive) and agree that this is probably the best wording for now. I do think this phrase could certainly be cleaned up given a FA review. However I think it would require a great deal of discussion and headache to refine further, and believe that it is in a good place for GA status. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Passed GA!
This last round of editing has taken care of all issues I raised during this GA review. Thanks a ton to all the editors who have worked on this page, and a big shout out to the nominator, as well as the editors who helped with this review: and. You are all equally deserving of the credit for getting this to GA status, and are all entitled to add a green plus to your WikiResume.