Talk:Incel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aven13 (talk · contribs) 15:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This'll be a fun one. I can review it. Aven13 15:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

From a first read, it looks like a solid article, only in need of minor improvements.

• There are a lot of inline citations in the middle of sentences. Although that's fine for lists and in a few other cases, sentences such as "She stopped participating in her online project around 2000[33] and gave the site to a stranger.[30]" can just have both citations at the end. Having citations in the middle of a sentence makes the article harder to read.

• "On November 2, 2018, Scott Beierle killed two women and injured four women and a man before killing himself in a shooting at the Hot Yoga Tallahassee studio in Tallahassee, Florida. He had been a follower of incel ideologies for a long time,[18] and also had a history of arrests for grabbing women's buttocks." The citations are placed somewhat oddly in this sentence. One should be at the end about the arrest record, and one should be after the first sentence.

Also, I think that "for grabbing women's buttocks" should be replaced with something such as "sexual assault", but that's just a personal thing. You can decide.

• The lead says "estimates of the overall size of the community vary greatly". You should probably mention some numbers in the lead.

• Can you get a reference for the word "subhuman"? (Neither of the cited articles mention the word.)

• The article has no pictures. Though there aren't that many opportunities, sections like the section on incel memes would be well illustrated by some images.

• Is it possible to add a comprehensive section on just the overall toxicity of the incel community to each other? There are snippets throughout the article about how incels tell each other to kill themselves, but it's never really given its own spotlight. Where it should be put, you decide, but I feel like that's an important point that needs to be addressed. They aren't like some band of brothers; they constantly encourage suicide and anorexia. This is up to you, but I personally feel like it would improve the article.

• Shouldn't "bi-sexual" not have a hyphen (and be linked)?

• Space out citations in "Tens of thousands of self-identifying female incels are reported to populate the internet. Their most popular site is r/TruFemcels on Reddit, with over 22,000 members. Journalists have written that outside of the female incels' own communities, few believe women can genuinely experience involuntary celibacy. Some female incels believe they could have casual sex, but fear it would only be from men who would abuse or disrespect them.[111][112][113]"

That's all I have for now, but good work on a difficult and long article. More to come. Aven13 15:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aven13: Thanks for this review! Responding in order/seeking clarification:

1. Done.
2. I've moved the citations as you suggest. Regarding the wording, Beierle was arrested for battery on two occasions, as well as trespassing ([1]). He was never charged with sexual assault. I chose to be specific about the actions that led to the arrests because I think saying he was arrested for battery might mislead people into thinking he physically attacked someone (at least that's what comes to mind for me when I think of battery charges).
3. Done.
4. "subhuman" is from the first citation after that sentence (Baele et al.): It also appears, however, that the Incel ingroup acknowledges its "subhuman" nature, with frequent reminders to the group of how ugly they are. This feature somewhat challenges the view of extremist worldviews as made of a positive ingroup facing negative outgroups: both in- and outgroups are here negatively depicted. However, in line with the literature on dehumanization, Incels present themselves as having positive psychological traits and prosocial values that outgroups, especially women, don’t have. I've also added two more cites to support that they regularly refer to themselves with this term.
5. I've looked around for usable photographs and illustrations but there isn't much. The occasional photos that crop up tend to have personality rights issues—who wants to be used as visual identification on the "incel" article? There is/was File:Incel Specimen.jpg which I nominated for deletion for that reason, particularly given we don't know if the uploader is the person in the photo. Regarding memes, there's not much I've found that's freely licensed. There are a few illustrations in commons:Category:Inceldom, but they're pretty low-quality and IMO don't add much to the article. The "incel flag" has been added to this article at least once but I've yet to see a reliable source supporting that it is actually a flag adopted by any incel groups.
6. Incels do sometimes encourage other incels to kill themselves but I'm not sure I've seen RSes discuss incels encouraging other incels to develop anorexia. Are you thinking of the reference to eating disorders in the criticism section? If so, that's a researcher comparing incels to pro-ana groups in terms of how they radicalize each other: Another researcher at the ISD, Jacob Davey, compared the radicalization of incels in incel forums to teenagers being urged to go to extreme measures on online forums that promote anorexia and other eating disorders, and to online campaigns convincing people to join ISIL. I'm not sure there's enough material for a section on incels being toxic towards one another; aside from the discouragement of psychiatric help and encouragement of suicide (both mentioned in the mental health section) I haven't seen a ton of coverage here.
7. Done.
8. Done.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware that this is somewhat of a shorter review, but the article meets the GA criteria like this. So, for the final review...

Conclusion

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   As best I can tell.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I don't have earwig's tool because my computer is garbage, but no copyright violations as best as I can tell.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   A tad wordy, but I really can't fault it for that.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   It's true that the article doesn't hve any images, but, as you said, they're sort of hard to come by.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Same as above.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Congratulations on getting an important article up to GA! I believe you'll win some form of million award.

Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)