Talk:Katie Sierra free speech case/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 21:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I'll be reviewing this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

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

   Prose is clear, no obvious errors.

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

   The lead summarizes the article. Layout is properly formatted and uses a standard chronological structure. Some WP:WTW issues involving words that may introduce bias. Uses of "claimed" and similar words should be replaced with "said". Use of quotation marks should be carefully examined so they can't be construed as scare quotes. Ensure that any use of contentious labels is attributed and directly followed by a citation.

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:

   Standard reflist.

   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:

   This article is held at a higher standard for citations due to extensive political and BLP content. The body is well-cited, but citations should be added to the lead for published opinion and controversial statements. Most sources are reliable as standard newspapers. Some sources (Infoshop, Reason, and Democracy Now) risk introducing bias, but in all cases the authors are attributed or they are used for uncontested facts. Replace with better sources if possible, but it's not a major issue.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Information generally follows sources. One BLP concern: it says that Reed "contacted Katie via Facebook and apologized for lying", but this claim is not supported by either of the citations associated with that sentence.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Concerning WP:EARWIG score suggests over-reliance on direct quotes and identical phrasing in some areas.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Covers the background, the controversy, and the trial. Further information on subsequent developments would be beneficial, but a quick search suggests information on this aspect is limited.

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

   The article lingers on certain incidents and interactions. I don't think it's severe enough to count it against the GA criteria, but it might be worth pruning a few quotes or other smaller details.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   See below.

5. Is it stable?

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

   No ongoing edit wars.

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

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

   Images are available under Creative Commons.

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

   Few relevant images exist. Images are not of the topic but help illustrate relevant subjects and are explained through captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The information and formatting of this article are good, but there are some major issues to be addressed regarding verifiability and point of view. I considered failing the article given the wide scope of these issues, but none of them are too in depth, so I'm going to hold the article for seven days if there's any interest in addressing them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

   Thanks for the thorough review! I will work through these over the next seven days. czar 04:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

The wording and content of the article present serious NPOV issues. The text of the article should at no point suggest or even imply that someone is in the right or in the wrong (regardless of how obvious it might seem to you or me), and WP:WEIGHT needs to be considered so that sources and attributed opinions don't disproportionately favor one side of the dispute. I've listed examples below:

• Lead
  • wearing clothes with handwritten messages objecting to U.S. militarism, racism, sexism, and homophobia. – This wording attributes motives that are not explicitly described in the body and takes for granted that these are attributes of the U.S.
  • Incendiary comments by the principal and the members of the school board were reported in the press and provoked a controversy that garnered national and international media attention. – "Incendiary" is a subjective description made by Sierra's attorneys and must be attributed. This sentence implies that fault or blame for the controversy lies on the principal and the school board.
  • The actions and attitude of the school toward Sierra were sharply criticized in the media for what critics perceived as censorship and McCarthyism, as a dark sign of post–September 11 American society and its concept of freedom of speech. – This sentence implies near-universal support for Sierra in the media, which contradicts both the sources and the body of the article. Describing anything as a "dark sign" needs to be attributed as part of a quote and certainly doesn't belong in the lead.
• Background and suspension
  • In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, she was taken aback by the swell of "flag-waving" patriotism and "blind, unthinking" war advocacy among her fellow students – This is opinion and should be attributed to her.
  • The club's charter declared that it would "not tolerate hate or violence" and exist "to dispel myths about anarchism, especially the belief that anarchy is chaos and destruction". Without reading Sierra's literature, Mann refused to grant permission for such a club in the school, and according to Sierra had to ask her several times to return to class when he would not explain his decision. – This is pointedly written to portray a hero and a villain. It should simply state in plain language that he declined the request without citing a reason.
• Controversy
  • However, comments turned hostile towards the end of the meeting – The comments should be presented plainly. Descriptors such as "hostile" should only be used when attributed.
• Reaction to controversy
  • Too much WP:WEIGHT is given to the respective opinions of Metz, Sartwell, and Maharidge. These should all be reduced to a sentence or two.
  • Metz observed that the story had caught the attention of Poles, some of whom wanted Sierra to come and study in their country, and to the Japanese, whose response he called "more irrational" – Who in Poland and who in Japan? Even when attributed, this suggests an overwhelming consensus in these countries that is not supported by sources.
  • National and international observers were supportive of Sierra and sharply critical of the actions of the state. – Universally? This entire section creates the impression that there was no opposition outside of West Virginia to Sierra's ideas or actions.
• Further reading and external links
  • Most of the links in this section are persuasive in nature, which presents serious NPOV issues. I would recommend removing all of them except for the manifesto and the flyer (which provide valuable background information).

Edits

@Thebiguglyalien, I've completely rewritten the Background and Suspension sections, and very heavily edited the rest of the article to address your above comments. Take a look when you have a chance and let me know if they are satisfactory? czar 05:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you've addressed everything. I fixed a few typos as I was reading through it, but there are no other issues. It easily passes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)