Talk:SCP Foundation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 20:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, this has certainly been waiting a long time for a review! It's tough to finds sources that discuss online culture, and it's tough to find the right amount of detail when writing about fictional subjects; congratulations, Spirit of Eagle, on managing both. I really only have one concern to address before passing this article. A. Parrot (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2019 (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):

   Looks good overall, but my one problem is in the second sentence: "In universe, the SCP Foundation is responsible for locating and containing…" The phrase "in-universe" is a bit of Wikipedia jargon and may confuse those unfamiliar with it. The simplest alternative would be something like "Within the website's fictional universe", but I'm not entirely comfortable with that, either; it wasn't so long ago that discussion of "fictional universes" was pretty rare.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Looking at the results from Earwig's tool, the only potential copyright problem I see is the phrase "toaster that can only be referred to in the first person", which is found in the CNET article. As I can't think of another straightforward way to say this, I think it's allowable. (The text did say "which" instead of "that" before I edited it, but only "that" is 100% correct in a restrictive clause like this one.)

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:

   The reception section is almost entirely positive, but that tends to happen with analysis of creative works in a new medium, and the not-entirely-positive remarks from Eichler provide a reasonable amount of balance.

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks a lot for the review. This article has been many years in the making, so I’m glad that it turned out well.

I changed the opening of the sentence you identified to read “Within the website’s fictional setting.” This should hopefully eliminate any confusion about switching between a real-world website and a fictional organization, while also avoiding the in/out universe issue (a term which I was surprised to learn was not in wider usage).

I spent about eight minutes trying to come up with a way to rephrase the language about the toaster and was unable to come up with any intelligible alternative. I agree this is just one of those concepts that can only be stated one way. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle: When I think about it, "in universe" isn't restricted to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is the first place I can recall seeing it, back in the late 2000s. The notion of analyzing fictional universes and working out their history and rules dates back at least to Tolkien and was obviously adopted by the science fiction and fantasy communities of the late 20th century, but I'm not sure how common it was to speak of "fictional universes" before there were wikis to document every planet in Star Wars and every elf in Tolkien, or before those fandoms collectively went mainstream in pop culture around the same time. The SCP Foundation is an outgrowth of that way of thinking about fiction. For those who haven't gotten the cultural memo, so to speak, I think it's best to make the WP article on it as accessible as possible. </end rambling>

Anyway, "Within the website's fictional setting" is a good solution, but the phrase "in universe" is still in the second sentence of the lead. I don't know whether you want to vary the wording or just paste in "within the website’s fictional setting" in its place. A. Parrot (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: I've changed the language in the lede sentence to refer to "fictional setting" instead of "in universe." Your anaysis was spot on; I've most commonly seen the phrase "in-universe" used on various fan wikis. The phrase would probably be familiar to a fan of the SCP Foundation, but I agree that the language used within the article should be accesable to all. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Pass. Congratulations! A. Parrot (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)