Talk:Alt-right pipeline/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 23:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

An intriguing phenomenon, and I'm glad it's up at GAN- will review soon. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, I'm done with my review- I'll tidy up things once the comments have been addressed. Very high quality article, I'm impressed by the work you've done here! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk The most difficult part of writing this article has been managing the OR magnet that it's become. I've removed a few of the things you've mentioned entirely because it looks like they might have been unsupported additions that I missed in my cleanup efforts. Paragraph one of "Psychological factors" summarizes that one paper's explanation of radicalization (I chose to use that because it's the only source that covers both general radicalization and the alt-right pipeline specifically in detail), but there's one sentence there that reflects similar info elsewhere in the article, so I've added those sources.

I was hesitant to add more images, because I don't want to "highlight" any particular offender or instance of something like this, where I suspect the threshold for being undue is much more sensitive. I know I can be a bit pickier on "image relevance" than some editors, but I'd rather images that directly apply to the concept (or a specific aspect of it) as a whole. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough on the images, and I understand the OR issues, especially with such a niche (yet fascinating) subject. Good to go for GA! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	*Add Template:Use dmy dates or similar to convert dates in refs. I also suggest adding Template:Use American English or appropriate. Wl internet memes Though the amount of organized hate groups has decreased, - decreased since when? Otherwise, the prose is extremely well-written and very impressive. I could see this going to FAC soon.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No fiction, lists, or words to watch present. Complies with other MoS standards.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citations are placed in a proper "References" section.
	2b. 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).	*This phenomenon of algorithmic filtering can create echo chambers, which can make the deprogramming process extremely difficult for individuals who are deeply entrenched in this content sphere and community. - Uncited I question para 1 of "Psychological factors". There's only one citation for the whole paragraph. Could this possibly be supported by another source? Otherwise, the article contains citations to reliable sources; most are journal articles, with some news articles and reports- all reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article is well-cited to reliable sources. I spotchecked a few random citations while reading just to ensure it's supported, and they all came up clean. No OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article addresses the process of the pipeline, the content involved in it, and psych factors, and concerns/prevention regarding it. All good here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There's definitely opportunity for bias, but as far as I can see, no editorial bias is visible. All good here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image is properly CC tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In my opinion, more media could be added to further illustrate the article. Perhaps photos of some personalities in a multiple image box under "Content", or a photo of the mosque under "Concerns and prevention". Image is relevant and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.