Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Maia arson crimew/1

Maia arson crimew

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Seems to be the general attitude. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(this is my first time submitting a GAR, please bear with me.)

1. Well-written:

a. the prose may not be clear to a broad audience, as it may not meet WP:TECHNICAL. (although this may be unavoidable due to the article's topics, it could use more explanation of important terms/concepts or rewording, mainly in parts other than the lead section)

b. WP:LEAD: "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I think this particularly applies to the second paragraph, whose final sentence already appears in the article.

2. Verifiable with no original research: fine, I think

3. Broad in its coverage:

a. Prior to my edit, this article contained no mention of crimew's involvement with music, despite her (currently, at least) describing herself as a musician and DJ on social media and on her personal website linked in the article. Although she is majorly known for her hacking activities, she does have a presence/reputation within various online communities as a DJ, and I feel that the article doesn't cover this at all.

b. With WP:SS in mind, the sectioning of this article feels like it could use some improvement, perhaps with some clearer separation between hacking activities / legal history / personal life and activities.

4. Neutral: I don't see much issue with the article here, although I'm unsure whether the article unduly focuses on statements from the subject herself.

5. Stable: fine

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Media in the article fulfils (a.) and (b.), but is majorly lacking. RhymeWrens (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

These are rather loose criticisms and I'm not seeing an identification of any major problems. This article is not a featured article but a good article, where the standards are considerably lower.

This is not really what GAR is for. Have you brought up these concerns on the talk page? That probably should have been your first step. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be glad to try and clarify any criticisms I made that were loose/vague. I'm well aware this is not a featured article, and I simply thought that this article did not currently meet the "considerably lower" standards of the GA criteria.

I apologize if this is not what GAR is for, but I don't know what would be the correct action to suggest this article's GA status be reconsidered. If you're simply saying that the problems I pointed out are insignificant, I guess that's valid, but are they not relevant to the criteria? Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm still pretty inexperienced with navigating Wikipedia), but this talk page says that this article was self-nominated for GA in 2021 and its GA status hasn't been reviewed since 2021.

I will admit that I never much considered posting something to the talk page before submitting a GAR, and I apologize for not doing so; I now get the impression that it's much more of an assertive/definitive action than a simple request for reconsideration. RhymeWrens (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I think your last evaluation is spot on; GAR is really for egregious issues that need to be addressed with more immediacy by many of the community. Practically all GAs (and FAs) are self nominated; 2021 is pretty recent for a GA, if you scroll through other GAR nominations, you'll find mostly articles pre-2015, oftentimes from 2006–2008 (those are the really bad ones).

For example, check out Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pipe organ/1 from 2006. Entire uncited paragraphs, bloated messy content, unreliable sources etc. It was even worse when nominated [1] but our standards have increased a lot since then.

This isn't to say that your concerns are not valid, or indeed that you did anything wrong, but I hope it gives some more context to a process like this. From what it sounds like, you seem to have a grasp of the subject matter, so perhaps take a crack at some of the issues yourself. In any case, the original nominator, Vaticidalprophet is an excellent editor, and I'm sure they'd be happy to work with you. Aza24 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with Aza24 that GAR is for major issues, issues so large that they would drive a reviewer to quickly fail a nomination rather than recommend improvements. I'm relatively new to the GAR process, having only opened two a few months ago; of these one had major problems with completeness and unreliable sources and the other cited unreliable sources and had even plagiarised from some. Of what you've mentioned here, it seems like these issues could be addressed by either editing the article yourself or at least discussing it with the primary author. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I can try addressing these issues myself, though given that I don't exactly have the time and definitely not the skill to confidently bring this article to fully meeting the GAC, I'm indeed probably better off trying to bring these concerns to other authors' attention (and evidently doing so through a GAR was the wrong way to go). Thanks RhymeWrens (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I think this GAR should probably be dismissed/closed. Don't worry too much about it, it's a complicated website haha 222emilia222 (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.