Talk:Alanah Pearce

Sources

I think I've basically exhausted the sources about Pearce available at the moment. I'm not sure what else I should do before nominating for GA - possibly adding a listing of video appearances in § Filmography? If anyone has any additional sources or general suggestions, please share. Warm regards, Aranya (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"developer"

Referring to her simply as a "developer" is too ambiguous. Do sources specify what exactly it is she does? i.e. writer, designer, programmer? TarkusAB^talk/contrib 08:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: Yes! It specified writer in the second sentence but I moved it into the first. Thanks for that. Aranya (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alanah Pearce/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 03:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. Steelkamp (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I've made some minor changes to the article myself. I hope your fine with them. Steelkamp (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Hi Steelkamp, really appreciate your detailed review of the article and the tweaks you made. Sorry for the delay - I'll be leaving my responses and changes to the article within a day. Aranya (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  I am still concerned that the article does not meet the requirements for being broad in coverage. Therefore, I will fail this good article review. Steelkamp (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Hi Steelkamp, I totally agree with your reasoning in failing. If you don't mind I'll still leave the replies I was intending to before, since I still want to address your points. Thanks again for doing this review and my apologies for drawing this process out. Aranya (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Why doesn't the article use DMY date format? The subject has strong national ties to Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed - I changed it to DMY when I first saw your review, earlier. Aranya (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Having many short paragraphs inhibits the flow of the text. Some paragraphs there can be combined together. Steelkamp (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've reorganized a bit in the process of addressing the other points. Aranya (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• The sentence on her youtube channel could be higher in the article, because it has been active since 2012, and the surrounding paragraphs are about late 2020. Steelkamp (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Moved that higher. Aranya (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• What is Funhaus? What type of videos does it make? Reviews? General gaming? I ask this because Inside Gaming is specified as a news program, and I think the same can be done for Funhaus. Steelkamp (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I added that it "produces videos focused on video games" Aranya (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• She left Rooster Teeth in October 2020. – This sentence can be expanded to say She left Rooster Teeth in October 2020, saying she has another opportunity she "couldn't say no to." Steelkamp (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I feel like that's a bit unnecessary context, and we talk about the opportunity in the next sentence. Aranya (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Source 11 states that she has 102,000 Twitch followers, but the page does not mention Twitch at all. Steelkamp (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I was thinking about adding that, but I couldn't anything more than brief mentions of her channel (apart from that article) to justify inclusion. Maybe future articles will cover her Twitch in the future, given the large amount of followers? Aranya (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Source 4 says "But running her own channel gave her the opportunity to hone her video production skills, get comfortable speaking on camera, and share her thoughts and feelings about games." I reckon the paragraph on her youtube channel can be elaborated on. Steelkamp (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I was thinking somewhere along the lines of "Running a YouTube channel has enabled her to practice video production and how to speak on camera." Even though it's a pretty reasonable claim, I'm not too comfortable adding it with the given SVG.com article though, since it's not a quote from Pearce herself and I'm not sure how the author came to that conclusion. Aranya (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• More can be elaborated on her move to the United States. Source 4 has some information there. Write the reason she moved there, her visa issues prior to getting a job at IGN and her temporary move back to Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  That's a good idea - added the reason for her move, since that's relevant to her career. I had details on the visa in an earlier revision but another editor removed it as an obvious detail. Aranya (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Article has 1 image, which appears to be licensed correctly. Search on google reveals no other creative commons licensed images of Alanah Pearce, plus 1 image is adequate for an article of this size anyway. The image criteria is passed. Steelkamp (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Alanah Pearce

Hi@Alanah Pearce:@Rhain: It is a not standard to use WP:SPS sources to validate a birthday or any kind of bio information on BLP articles. It has not been checked by any peer review or under editorial control, or fact checked. You might think it is cool, you may be fan or something, but it is simply not done to use non-standard sources to verify a BLP article, particularly since it is a new article. There is a script on Wikipedia that shows these types of references up, in BLP, and when it comes up at Afd or coin I removed. That is the consensus. Please do not add in it back in. If you want, I can ask for page protection or take to ANI. Find a better a source. Do not rely on social media to support an BLP article. It is reduces the quality and much much harder to verify it later. scope_creep^Talk 06:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I’m not sure who you’re trying to ping, but I assume you’re referring to me. As per my edit summaries, please read WP:DOB: "A verified social media account of an adult article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" falls under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth." This is official BLP policy per consensus. It is the standard (albeit a newer one). – Rhain ☔ 07:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Rhain. The source for the birthday is acceptable. Steelkamp (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Your right it is consensus, agreed June 2021, which I didn't know about, but it is not acceptable. These sources, espoused by used by this generation, who tend to spill their guts on social media, will change in 10-20-30 years up the road, when the worm turns. They will invariably change, as humanity all ways changes as they get older and start to say things that conflict with things they said when they were younger. So it fundamentally doesn't work and is the reason in past centuries, they always verified it. Its not a new problem. It also conflicts with WP:SPS policy, at a fundamental level. So will cause problems for maintenance and verifiability up the line, and by using these sources it makes the articles shallower, more fragile and of a lower quality than similar article that uses proper verified sources. So good on you for reducing the quality of Wikipedia!! scope_creep^Talk 12:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If you care about it that strongly, take your holier-than-thou attitude to WT:BLP and start a new discussion there; over here, you might as well be yelling snarky comments into the void. – Rhain ☔ 14:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to annoy you, I'm trying to get to you to understand how weak these sources are and how your position is. It breaks WP:SPS. They are not fact checked. They are self-published. What that means is all thats all it needs the individual to say something in later life, or some event to occur, that casts doubt on what they said when they were younger, then the whole ediface collapses. It is that simple. They are extraordinarily weak and will cause problems in the long term. As an approach it is very short-termist, perhaps to satisfy a need for completeness, when most other editors see accuracy as more important and would wait to get a particular fact, that sometimes takes years. We are not in it for the short term. scope_creep^Talk 14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't care. Save these arguments for a proper discussion, because over here you're just yelling cynicism for nobody to read. Someone tweeting their own birthday or birthplace is just as reliable (if not more so) than, say, The New York Times writing about it, and it has the added benefit of avoiding privacy concerns. I just think the word "Twitter" is scary to some editors. – Rhain ☔ 23:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That sums it up, you don't care, so your not willing do the work to determine if it is benefit to Wikipedia or not. I think your a bit confused. The New York Times, double checks every fact it receives. And it has nothing to do with Twitter. It could be somebody writing on a rock on the moon, or whispering it to you, chinese like, in the ear. The fact is, it is not fact checked is the core of it. It is simply one person making a statement about themselves. So it is entirely subjective, not objective.scope_creep^Talk 15:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I've done the work, and determined that it does benefit Wikipedia. I just don't care about this discussion in particular. If Alanah Pearce told The New York Times that she was born on 24 August 1993, the only fact-checking they would do is with Pearce herself; if you think they're going to track down her birth certificate to prove that information, then I'm afraid you're overestimating their fact-checkers. I'm not sure how Moon rocks or Chinese whispers are relevant to this. At the end of the day, I think the new policy at WP:DOB is incredibly useful and aligns with existing WP policy, and I fully support the editors responsible for it. That's all. – Rhain ☔ 23:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Alanah is not relevant enough to entertainment to have a page.

I suggest deletion. The references are her own Twitter and tabloid news. This whole page reads like a resume or social media rant; She was in the middle of online drama that wasn’t historically important. Lots of people have done the same work she has and also received rape threats. Creatively we have no idea what she does. Wikipedia is not meant to be a hub for social media personalities to game their way into. 47.225.73.186 (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

She is a game writer and journalist, not just a "social media personality", and nobody has "gamed their way into" anything. This article cites many independent, reliable sources; none are "tabloid news". "Lots of people have done the same work she has and also received rape threats"—then, if they are also covered by reliable sources, they can receive articles too, when someone takes the time to write them; but "what about x" is not a sufficient reason to delete something. – Rhain ☔ 13:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Even worse are those who nominate a page for deletion, declaring it needs to be cleaned up rather than...putting in the work to clean up the page. I've had that happen before, where people have nominated a page for deletion, it is kept, and those users never go back to help improve the page after that. Historyday01 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)