Talk:Wikipedia and the COVID-19 pandemic/GA1

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

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 16:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks interesting! I will review this (hopefully) later today.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 16:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay! Per your changes implemented I am now happy to pass this article for GA status. Congrats!  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 05:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check
Everything else is good per WP:COPYQUOTE.
 * The quotation from Renée DiResta is a concern.
 * It's been rephrased; if it's still too close, do you think it's worth keeping?
 * Yes, it looks good now!
 * The sentence starting "According to Wikimedia Foundation spokeswoman Chantal De Soto, as of the end of July 2020," is too closely paraphrased.
 * I actually just cut this phrase; the first paragraph of that section details editor statistics during 2020, so I don't feel this is necessary as it's not the most up to date information.
 * Good choice.

Files
All images used are appropriate, relevant, of good quality and copyright-free:
 * : CC-BY-SA 3.0;
 * : CC-BY-SA 3.0;
 * : CC-BY-SA 3.0;
 * : GNU General Public License;
 * : CC-BY-SA 4.0;
 * : CC-BY-SA 4.0;
 * : CC-BY-SA 4.0.

Prose
I believe I've addressed everything here. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikilink the first mentions of COVID-19 and COVID-19 pandemic in the body as they are relevant to understanding this article.
 * Done
 * "In mid-March 2020" – in all other instances only the month is mentioned.
 * I believe this clarifies when in March it was written because March 2020 was when most lockdowns happened across the U.S.; an article written on March 1, 2020 would have a very different perception of COVID than an article written on March 30, 2020. Does march have a 31st? Eh, who knows anymore.
 * Ah, I see! That is fair enough.
 * "Wikipedia experienced an increase in readership during the COVID-19 pandemic." – this line could probably be mentioned in the first paragraph.
 * Added
 * "Wikipedia editors have averaged" – change to "Wikipedia editors had averaged"
 * "(to pandemic-related pages)." – are the parentheses necessary? Also:
 * "pandemic-related pages" is slightly ambiguous as COVID-19 was not immediately declared a pandemic.
 * To address the last three, I rephrased the sentence to be past tense and to fit the changes
 * Looks good.
 * "there were nearly 7,000 Wikipedia articles" – Wikipedia articles is redundant IMO; just articles should work fine.
 * Fixed
 * CNET should not be italicised.
 * Fixed
 * "setting up "sock puppets" accounts" – change sock puppets to singular.
 * Fixed
 * The quotation from Renée DiResta is far too long.
 * Fixed, as addressed under "Other"
 * Wikilink media ecosystem.
 * Fixed
 * The paragraph starting "One study found that Wikipedia's coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic from January to May 2020" feels out of place to me. I would perhaps move it near the top of the article?
 * Moved to be the second paragraph under "Wikipedia"
 * More fitting :)
 * "study showed that nearly 2% of COVID-19-related literature" – change to "two percent" per MOS:%.
 * Fixed
 * The sentence starting "On 16 June 2021, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee closed" does not seem notable. I can see why it is included, but the only citations for it are to Wikipedia itself. Also, most non-editors will likely not find this interesting.
 * I've cleaned up this paragraph. Do you feel the sourcing complies with WP:ABOUTSELF?
 * Looks to be.
 * "known as WikiProjects helped to steward the English Wikipedia's pandemic coverage," – steward?
 * I've seen steward used to describe supervision before, but I've replaced it, as I do agree it's an odd choice of words
 * Thanks—noted.
 * I would add some more context to the paragraph about the 2020 Tablighi Jamaat COVID-19 hotspot in Delhi article, like mentioning why/to whom it caused controversy.
 * Done; I did add some citations too, in case you need to take that into consideration for spotchecking.
 * "to the English Wikipedia had increased by 20% due" – "20 percent".
 * Fixed
 * Most of the information about other language editions of Wikipedia are from early and mid-2020 (which makes sense as that is when media interest kinda peaked). Are there any notable updates available since then?
 * I don't believe so; searches through Google News and Scholar show no results for the different things mentioned. Sadly, it seems that reporting on COVID has seriously curbed since 2020.
 * "India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and National Health Authority, and the World Health Organization to improve coverage." – World Health Organization is a duplicate link.
 * Fixed
 * "The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization" – Wikimedia Foundation is a duplicate link.
 * Fixed

Refs
Spotcheck: I'll stop here :). Spotcheck done. This plus my new point about the External links below (very bottom) are my only two concerns than I believe I should be able to pass this.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 23:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 ✅
 * Ref 2b:
 * The WP article states "had become the 4th most viewed article on the website of all time" whilst the cited article says the COVID-19 pandemic entry was only thirty-fourth.
 * Huh, that's odd; probably a typo from the editor, but thanks for finding that, that is a pretty major piece of info to be skewing. I also added some up to date info to that paragraph if you need to take a look.
 * Ref 3c
 * I see no mention of "The "In the News" section of the English Wikipedia's main page dedicated a section to links containing information about the COVID-19 pandemic".
 * Hm, that is odd; I have an alternative source, but it's an archived main page from Wikipedia in July. Would this be acceptable to cite?
 * Well, if it is not mentioned in any news sources than it is probably not really notable unfortunately.
 * Alright then, it's been cut. I believe I've addressed everything here. Thank you for reviewing! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome :3  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 05:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 4 ✅
 * 5 ✅
 * 10 ✅
 * 12 ✅
 * 24 ✅


 * Formatting:
 * Wikilink the publication names of refs 2, 15 and 33.
 * Added
 * Is a non-URL publication name available for ref 18?
 * Respectfully, what do you mean? Are you referring to the paywall? If that's the issue, I've added an archived URL.
 * Ah, I mean News-Medical.net; is that its official name or is it News Medical etc?
 * Ref 41 is missing a publisher.
 * Fixed

Other
Section formatting, See also, navboxes, portals, other templates and categories good.
 * The short description is really vague; how about "Wikipedia's response to a world event" or something similar to that?
 * Changed to "Wikipedia's response to global pandemic"
 * Recommend adding template:Use X English.
 * Added
 * Please add WP:ALT text if you can.
 * Added
 * Minor cosmetic error—some headings have initial and succeeding spaces whilst others do not. This is a super easy fix but due to how even they both are I could not assess which style was the preferred one :3
 * What do you mean by this? I apologize for my lack of understanding, but I don't quite know what you're referring to; the headings look fine on my end (to clarify, I'm using the Vector 2022 skin).
 * When you click edit,  (spaces) and   (no spaces). Actually, perhaps they do not have to be consistent… eh, I will let you decide.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 20:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see now. It's been fixed.
 * In External links, I would move Thalen and "Meet some of the women sharing …" to Further reading and remove the remaining two Medium sources. They feel somewhat excessive IMO.
 * All fixed now