Talk:The Daily Stormer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 28, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

• NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you!
• Please expand lede sect to four (4) paragraphs, fully summarizing article to function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD. But first add Reception or Commentary or Analysis sect, as mentioned, below.

2. Verifiable?: Duly cited throughout, no issues here.

3. Broad in coverage?: MISSING: Please add Reception or Commentary or Analysis sect. Need sect addition to place the topic within context of how it is perceived among a preponderance of secondary sources.

4. Neutral point of view?: MISSING: Without a sect full of analysis from secondary sources, as recommended, above, article is not neutral and lacks description of overall perception of publication from overall secondary sources.

5. Stable? I see several edits recently that seem problematic by new users and IPs. Addition of primary source in edit summary, Removed irrelevant and polarizing information, etc. Please explain if attempts have been made to discuss with these users. Is semi-protection necessary? Is this an issue for possible further instability?

6. Images?:

• File:JaredTaylor.JPG = problem here. Dead link. This image needs to either be deleted or have commons:Commons:OTRS confirmation.
• File:Weevilicious.jpg = and here we have a good example of what is best, OTRS confirmation. Good job on this one.
• File:Daily Stormer.png = MISSING: field on Author or copyright holder. Strongly recommend somewhere on that template to have a several-point-argumentation for why this image is needed and to have a very detailed fair use rationale. Like a listed numbered argument in several points of why it's needed. Helps make the fair use rationale much stronger and lasting over time that way.

NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Based on the length of this article, four paragraphs in the lead section would be way too long, per WP:LEAD. sst^flyer 05:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you're right. But my suggestion takes into account my strong recommendation for another sect on reflection of the subject matter and analysis from secondary sources. At that point, that new info should be added to the lede. Otherwise, okay. :) — Cirt (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Cirt: Does the "content" section not count as a reception/analysis section? Within, we see analysis of the website's formula, and how it is regarded by anti-racists and other white nationalist authors. That is the breadth of opinions which you have asked for. '''tAD''' (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Jared Taylor: Although it is a dead link, the image is still visible on the side of the link. However, as he is merely someone who criticised the website, rather than a contributor, we can do without this image '''tAD''' (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Stability: The page attracts occasional hit-and-run vandalism, such as from white nationalist dissenters who don't like Anglin's take on women or his alleged interracial activities. There is not as far as I can see a serious dispute on content, sourcing or other. The brevity of initial semi-protection will not diffuse these dispersed vandalisms, nor is a permanent semi-protection acceptable when they are so dispersed '''tAD''' (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering how has the organization been commented on by published books, the media, The Washington Post, The New York Times, perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center has discussed it and been quoted in secondary sources, maybe some academic journal articles, that sort of thing. Looking for a wider context of commentary here than just by others within same field. — Cirt (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

1. The_National_(Scotland)#Reception
2. Antara_(news_agency)#Public_response_and_opinion
3. WSJ.#Critical_review

Here are some good examples of what I was thinking about as far as context from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In reference #7, there is the dissenting opinions as quoted in the LA Times, which I believe is one of the leading American newspapers. Nonetheless, I can look for more '''tAD''' (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it shouldn't be too hard, I was able to find a lot lot more online in good WP:RS secondary sources that discuss this subject. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've taken the liberty myself to fix all issues at image File:2008 Jared Taylor.jpg = so you can add that back into the article if you like. Any updates on adding a new section for Reception with secondary sources, please? — Cirt (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Cirt: I have the reception alongside the content, because The Daily Stormer is by definition an unremarkable media organ where the content only becomes notable through external analysis. In that section, there is the analysis and reception from anti-racist/ethnic special interest bodies (SPLC, ADL, Jewish Chronicle). There is also reception both positive and negative, from more established white nationalist organizations. When it comes to the Trump endorsement (another thing which is unremarkable without external analysis), there is reception from a black conservative, an author blaming changes in anti-racist academia, and another who puts the blame on Trump himself. There is a suitable balance between what the Stormer is saying of itself, and the reaction from a spectrum of other organizations and writers giving their views about the website '''tAD''' (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You make some very good points. I'll re-read it over again one more time and get back to you, here. — Cirt (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've re-read it over again. Personally I think it'd be best to break out Reception info into its own sect. But to each their own I guess. Only one thing left remains, and that would be to add a new paragraph to the WP:LEAD sec with summary of the secondary source commentary strewn throughout the article into one summary paragraph. Then, after that's done, should be good to go! Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Daily_Stormer.png

Came here for this, saw was in GA review (so am nesting it; if think should be in parent go ahead and mv there). I think a solution is to crop then SVG the typography, rm Anglin's name from image, and to not have the Happy Merchant[1] in corner. Ya' know, to have only actual logo and not entire stylistic banner used for layout. If the logo is cleaned up it doesn't even need to be fair use as typefaces are not eligible for copyright due to not meeting threshold of originality, and the Reichsadler or other historic nazi symbolism are public domain (example: File:Reichsadler der Deutsches Reich (1933–1945).svg). -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this recommendation from Dsprc, will give GA Nominator The Almightey Drill a couple more days to carry this out. And to improve the lede intro sect with some secondary sourced Commmentary from the article's body text as recommended earlier, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not skilled in any aspect in graphics, so I would not know how to remove Anglin's name while keeping the gradient in the background. It is not possible to simply crop, as the flicks of the longer letters go down to the same level as Anglin's name '''tAD''' (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: Neither am I. :) Can try and take a stab myself (will follow up on your talk), but am unable to do SVG conversion with this machine. Luckily, the file is a PNG and not JPEG so less artifacts to get in the way. I noticed Daily Stormer are holding a new logo contest so it may not be worth the trouble. I can maybe contact Stormer/Anglin to try and get a non-gradient version etc. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, but be safe with your communications. Clearly, I don't know Anglin myself and I shouldn't make assumptions about one individual, but some people of his ideological persuasions are suspicious of Wikipedia '''tAD''' (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Note taken. ;) -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

I've looked it over and re-read the article again and I see that the commentary type info is actually integrated into the lede intro sect quite nicely. The image issue is fine for GA for now and can be worked out later with Dsprc on the article's talk page. Good job. — Cirt (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)