Talk:Pastel QAnon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: NSNW (talk · contribs) 22:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello there! I will be reviewing your nomination. This particular nomination shouldn't take very long. Personally I followed the story of qAnon very closely so I should have good knowledge of this, comments will come soon. NSNW (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

@AFreshStart: I may not be able to respond to comments quickly. I'm going on a trip to Washington, DC over the weekend. But I will try to respond as best I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNW (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That's okay, I hope you enjoy your trip! Sorry I was unable to reply to your review sooner. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead:

1. You need to make the lead bigger; currently all that is referenced in the lead is what Pastel QAnon means itself and who discovered it. You should put in info about some of the tactics, viewpoints, (the true meaning of "pastel" QAnon), etc.

 Done I have tried to expand the lead to give a better overview of the article. Not added any more references per WP:LEADCITE, but I know the topic is contentious so if there are any specific claims you think need citing, please let me know. Thank you for starting this review btw, I know the topic is a difficult one! —AFreshStart (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

References

1. All of the references in the article are reliable except for [6], I'm not sure entirely sure the Verifability of SoundCloud as source. I may consult other editors about this. Other sources that I'm unsure about are [27] and [16]. The first one is considered a biased source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and since this is an article about a conspiracy theory I feel like a better source should be used. The second is a website that I believe is a podcast website but I may be wrong however (I have never seen this website before). Besides that the rest of the sources are excellent.

 Done I have removed the contentious sources (all of the content in the Intercept (ref. 27) source was included in the other cited source, and the SoundCloud (ref. 6) source didn't add much to the article. I think ref. 16 is reliable, as it is published by SBS World News, but I'll admit I'm no expert on that specific source so I have removed it from the article. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Image Review

1. [[1]], the link to this image directs to an archive website that displays an error [message]. This conflicts with copyright as there is no way for me to verify the source of the image. There is also no definitive author for the image. Same thing for [[2]]

That's interesting; the archived source (it is the same for both) is showing up fine for me, although it is a redirect. I've updated the URL so hopefully this helps.

The original authors of these were not given. I don't think not having a definitive author for these images matters too much, as they consist of non-copyrightable fonts and colours, and are below the below the threshold of originality (which is what I have tagged the images as on Commons) as they contain no unique images, artwork, etc. I'll admit that I am not an expert in copyright law, so I could be totally incorrect on that one. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm no expert either on copyright, but I'll assume good faith here. On the redirects, it may be because I'm using a MacBook, in particular one lended by my high school, which has website blockers, so it may have just been me. NSNW (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Follow up, I've just tired the links and they work now, thank you! NSNW (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Prose

There are several prose issues here.

• Lorna Bracewell, a political scientist, claimed that right-wing movements that focus on protecting one's children, such as QAnon, "speak to a distinctively feminine set of anxieties and fears to mobilize a distinctively feminine species of anger". ... May want to watch "claimed", replace it with "stated".

  done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• This has appealed to white Republican women, in particular suburban "soccer moms". ... What's "This", explain more what it is, it breaks up the flow of the prose.

  don't know --GA

  It refers to "pastel qanon" itself, it's referencing what groups pastel qanon targets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNW (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I see, I misunderstood the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is also done to avoid their posts being deleted, as explicit QAnon references are banned on many social media sites. ... Again, what is "This".

  don't know --GA

  You can just say "Gateway messaging is also done to" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNW (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• The messages often use and expand upon existing distrust and misunderstanding of the groups targeted and positive reinforcement, ... Remove "often" (redundancy).

  tried "tend to" --GA

• Pastel QAnon targets several existing communities and movements which are aimed at women ... Try to work this into another paragraph, it's a one sentence paragraph like that. NSNW (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I understand it's like a summary of what follows, which could be expressed by a colon, perhaps followed by bulleted entries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think you should just keep it in the first paragraph like it is now, I don't think a list is appropriate here.

Once these are completed the article is passable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNW (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

per nominator's talk: I did minor changes, but don't know enough about the other two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

All the changes have been made. Congrats! I will pass the article now. NSNW (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)