Wikipedia:Peer review/QAnon/archive1

QAnon


QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory (or meta-theory) that is spreading disturbingly quickly among Trump voters and has slowly creeped its way into the GOP's collective consciousness, to the point where it is now being referred to as mainstream by the AP.

I'm listing this article for PR as I think the subject matter has the potential to eventually make it to GA, despite the multiple issues with the lead section as well as the article's general structure.

Any and all tips are most appreciated.

Thanks, Edelsheim (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this on. This'll be my first PR (though I did do a GAR recently), so please bear with me as I figure out how to give appropriate commentary. I hope to help give some good suggestions. Jlevi (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll start a deeper dive tomorrow, but here are a few suggestions to kick this off:
 * A number of weak references should be replaced. 1) The 'Jo.My.God.' source can go--the Guardian source is fine. 2) I see two sources from the blog section of The Hill. I suggest replacing. For instance, the one about Trump meeting Lionel could be replaced with the original Daily Beast article referenced in the source. And maybe an even better source could be found. Was this picked up by any less partisan outlets?
 * The external links section needs a look. I see that several sources are already used in the article, so by WP:ELPOINTS they should be removed. Have you come across any materials that wouldn't work well as a source, but might add valuable information?
 * The bit about bleach-drinking at the end of 'Appeal and disillusionment' could be moved to the to QAnon.
 * There seem to be some WP:layout issues in play. For instance, the QAnon section seems to be bloated and difficult to read. Here are a few suggestions to re-balance the article and make that section more digestible:
 * Even though this page is not particularly long, it might be worthwhile to propose a WP:split for content reasons. Perhaps to a list? This would allow otherwise undue details to be collected in a manner that won't overwhelm the main Qanon page.
 * Some subsections could be combined into meatier sections. For instance, QAnon and QAnon could be combined.
 * On another note, it might be worth re-visiting QAnon. Did anything happen with these candidates?
 * The QAnon would be more appropriate as a minority opinion (if it is a minority opinion?) in the 'Analysis' section.


 * The page has a noticable lean towards left-wing sources (lots of The Hill, The Daily Beast, The Washington Post, etc), with not a single reference from the WSJ, Fox News, or any other more reputable right-of-center outlets. I would certainly understand if it is difficult to find these sources, but it might be worth looking.
 * Found some. One from WSJ: . Fox News has plenty (from the news side): . Some from The Federalist:   (actually, might not be so reliable based on RSN discussions). National Review: . The American Conservative:

Looks like there's quite a bit of work to do! Looking forward to working with you. Jlevi (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Some additional comments:
 * The History section seems to contain a lot that isn't actually history. It could probably be separated into a 'background' and a 'history' section. Maybe a separate 'beliefs' section as well. In addition, quite a few details from the Incidents section could probably be moved into this section.
 * The Appeal and disillusionment section is rather ungainly. It covers many topics that either don't fit nicely under the title or might fit better in a subsection. These subtopics include: public opinion, personal paths through the conspiracy, and outside comments that seem to be more appropriate to the 'analysis' section. The use of block quotes is more extensive than I tend to prefer, but I recognize that opinions vary on that.

Jlevi (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have some source as well, do you want me to list them? 213.87.152.162 (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming they are from Reliable Sources, so ahead! Jlevi (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)