Talk:Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mokadoshi (talk · contribs) 03:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Not seeing any spelling issues or jargon.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: For the lead, see below comments. The layout looks good, although see comments below. For words to watch, see below. The other MOSes are not applicable.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): With over 100 references, I cannot read every single one in its entirety. As someone who was already more familiar than most with this topic, I did not notice anything surprising or inaccurate to my knowledge after reading the article multiple times. Therefore, I've checked the following: I spot-checked the references list for any opinion pieces; I checked each direct quotation to ensure the source contains the quoted content; I also checked a handful of other things I thought were likely to be contested, like specific dates and people's names. I've left some comments below as to which I didn't believe were WP:RELIABLE.
 * C. It contains no original research: I see no indication that there is original research.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: Earwig report is 20%, and it looks like this is just from people's names and titles, and direct quotations. None of the direct quotations are too long to be an issue.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: Close, but see below for more comments.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): No coatracks or other tangents.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: I wish for more detail in some places, but this is true neutrally across all viewpoints, so I don't believe there is any indication of undue weight.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: On hold for 1 week so the remaining issues can be fixed.
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: I wish for more detail in some places, but this is true neutrally across all viewpoints, so I don't believe there is any indication of undue weight.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: On hold for 1 week so the remaining issues can be fixed.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: On hold for 1 week so the remaining issues can be fixed.
 * Pass or Fail: On hold for 1 week so the remaining issues can be fixed.

Lead

 * As per MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL, the lead needs to be expanded to appropriately summarize the sections in the article. Once you've done so, you should remove the  tag. Specifically, I would suggest you add the quote "consistently candid in his communications" to the lead, as that is a quote that was widely shared when discussing and speculating on this event.
 * As per MOS:CITELEAD, claims in the lead that are likely to be challenged should be cited, especially because this article contains biographical content about a living person. Specifically, any dates should have a citation, and any direct quotations that you may add as part of this review.

Layout

 * Optional: I'm a bit confused as to what information you chose to put in the "Background" section vs the "Events leading up to the removal" section. (How is the latter not "background" information?) I think the article would be greatly improved by being reorganized, which I have mentioned on the Talk page. As I understand it, this is not required to address for a GA review though because there is no clear consensus.

Words to watch

 * As per MOS:SAID, do not use synonyms for "said", like with Altman quipped that the OpenAI board...
 * I would argue "quipped" is fine here as Altman was joking. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't say he was joking though. Mokadoshi (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As per MOS:ALLEGED, do not use words that cast doubt like reportedly and purportedly as it's a form of editorializing. For example, The removal reportedly left OpenAI in "chaos", according to The New York Times. can be changed to simply According to The New York Times, the removal left OpenAI in "chaos". (For this specific quote, bonus points if you say who at The New York Times said this, but it's not required for this review.)
 * Allegations should be prefaced with descriptors of being an allegation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still disagree. The quote from the NYT is By Saturday morning, the company was in chaos, according to a half dozen current and former employees... By using "reportedly" you're casting doubt on the journalist's sources, which is editorializing unless this claim is refuted by other reliable sources. If we're going to do that, why not do it across the whole article, since most of the article is based on journalists quoting anonymous sources? As a random example, According to The Information, Altman is planning a new artificial intelligence venture with Brockman - this is also based on anonymous sources. Mokadoshi (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

 * In general the article does a good job of explaining all the different viewpoints, like for example the conflict between Altman and the board re: AI safety. However, I think you're missing some details that a reader would expect in this article. Altman had already attempted to remove Toner from the board. In addition to this, there was disagreement about which new board members Altman would approve the company to appoint. It was believed that these two together were an attempt by Altman to gain full control over the board, thereby nullifying the governance the non-profit arm is supposed to bring to the company. This, along with the AI safety concerns, are the two credible leading theories as to why the removal happened, and the only one to offer an explanation for the "consistently candid in his communications" as so widely discussed. We can't have multiple paragraphs on AI safety and nothing about Altman's previous relationship with the board. Here is one source you can use for this, but there are plenty of reliable sources online about this.