Talk:AXXo/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Nothing too concerning here. However, the styling issue is valid. We can't do "aXXo"; it comes out as "AXXo". It should probably just be "Axxo".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This is the major issue. Of the 16 sources, I'd immediately call 6 reliable. An additional one (Chip Online) is a Turkish website so I can't really evaluate it, but we'll give it the benefit of the doubt. That's 7 out of 16 so far. One's a dead link, and, let's face it, it's not going to be easy to verify an article from Concordia University's newspaper. Not much use, but it's a legitimate source. We're up to one half. The remaining sources are not reliable. First, the reference to Darkside is utterly useless. The link doesn't work and it contains no information otherwise. One's a Mininova blog, and the rest cite TorrentFreak. TorrentFreak is not necessarily considered a reliable source. From what I've seen, various discussions regarding this haven't yielded any consensus that it is reliable; indeed serious doubts about its reliability have been raised. WP:Blogs basically tells us that blogs are generally unreliable unless they're by published experts, and, again, serious doubts regarding that exist. For now, we should only cite unquestionably reputable sources that mention TorrentFreak, as opposed to citing it directly. The first GA review brushed off this question too easily and basically gave it this GA criteria. I feel that, barring a consensus or something, we can't presume that TorrentFreak is reliable. This wouldn't be a problem, but the article relies really heavily on TorrentFreak.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A major aspect about aXXo is his identity or possible identity. There is virtually no information on this. Surely the section could be expanded somewhat?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I don't detect any bias, really.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars, but severely plagued by vandalism, some undetected. Overall, pretty stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I believe the image is missing a license template, but it has a fair use rationale. Not a big deal but a template should still be added.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll give this some time for comment. However, I don't feel the article meets the GA criteria anymore, and I'm leaning towards delisting it. Swarm ^X 13:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Concur on sources. Rehevkor ✉ 13:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and delisted it. It's going need either a major references makeover, or a consensus validating TorrentFreak as a reliable source, before it can reattain GA status. Swarm ^X 04:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)