Wikipedia:Peer review/The Daily Stormer/archive1

The Daily Stormer

I've listed this article for peer review because I created it and had it passed for GA. I believe that the article covers a subject which has strong supporters and opponents in a neutral and encylopedic manner, and in a manner that can be understood by someone with limited or no prior knowledge of the subject.

Thanks, '''tAD''' (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

• I'm not sure how the italicization works—I thought websites weren't italicized (and "Stormfront" isn't italicized in the lead)
• The article suffers from a lot of recentism:
  • who affirm that it has overtaken Stormfront as the web's leading hate site—as of? Also, this seems to assume the reader knows what Stormfront is.
  • The website has also received attention for its endorsement of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, and its alleged reading by Charleston church shooting suspect Dylann Roof, whom Anglin condemned.—are these lead-worthy defining moments, or are they so prominently placed because they are so recent? To put it another way, how likely are these tidbits to stay in the lead five years from now?
  • Targets of the campaign include British MP Luciana Berger and Russian journalist Julia Ioffe, both of whom are Jewish, and Afghan Australian Muslim activist Mariam Veiszadeh.—ditto. The lead is supposed to be a general overview, and this may be too much detail, as well as recentism
  • Are entire sections on Roof and Trump really WP:DUE? I get the feeling they could be summed up more briefly, without their own section headers.
    • I think that it is due on Roof, but not Trump. This was a widely reported allegation which drew attention to the website. It is also important to have Anglin's response '''tAD''' (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Anglin says he spends 70 hours a week—as of?
  • which "has in the last six months often topped the—which last six months?
  • Jacob Siegel of The Daily Beast stated that the website was growing amongst a younger audience ...
  • 'The Daily Stormer endorses Donald Trump to be the next American president.
• than his previous work Total Fascism —is such a webstire normally called a "work"?
  • Maybe not but it's hard to find a synonym for website in the same sentence '''tAD''' (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• ... figures whom Anglin claims are attempting to ..., Anglin claims that he was liberal as a youth ..., claiming that "the vast majority ...—see WP:CLAIM
• and "all that Communist, Jewish stuff".—you'll find the FA people insist that you include an inline cite after every quote, even if it's cited later in the paragraph. Redundant, yes, but they'll still insist.
• aligning himself to Neo-Nazism.—I'm more familiar with "align with" than "align to".
• he had reservations over reintroducing all aspects of Hitler's regime.—do we know any details on what aspects he disagrees with?
  • All that is written in the reference is "“The term ‘neo-Nazi’ is clearly a slur, and I’m not certain I want to repeat everything like it was in Hitler’s Germany,” he says. “But I agree with all the core principles of National Socialism.”" '''tAD''' (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• In 2012, he launched Total Fascism, a blog through which he praised Hitler's artwork and the Greek Golden Dawn party, while denouncing libertarian radio host Alex Jones for not being critical of Jews.—are these the main things he focused on, or a random list of topics?
• espousing his new views as a Neo-Nazi—meaning he had newly converted to neo-Nazism, or his was a new brand of neo-Nazism?
• Florida-based Jewish troll Joshua Ryne Goldberg, who encouraged an Islamist attack on a free speech exhibition in Garland, Texas, under another pseudonym, wrote for The Daily Stormer under the name Michael Slay.—was he trolling? What did he write about?
• focus on Neo-Nazism ahead of "preserving and protecting the White race"—the average reader (and myself) will be surprised to learn these are somehow incompatible ideals.
  • It's because there's an image war in the extreme right. Some, like Anglin, enjoy provocative hi-jinks with swastikas everywhere and using racial obscenities, while others think that that was just 12 years of history and there should be a more wholesome face to their beliefs. I'll look at the source again and see what more is said. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• as well as Anglin's defense of Christianity and denouncement of the white supremacist sect Christian Identity—he both defends and denounces Christians?
  • He promotes the religion of Christianity, but not Christian Identity, which is an incredibly small denomination based entirely around racial purity. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• in the same manner as monster trucks and professional wrestling—the connection will not be obvious, particularly to non-Americans
• I'm not sure the quote about Roof adds anything.
• "cuckservatives"—should give a brief explanation of the word—readers shouldn't have to click through except out of curiosity for details
• In March 2016, Anglin wrote that Heidi Cruz, the wife of Trump's primary rival Ted Cruz, should be imprisoned or executed "for high treason".—just out of the blue? This needs context.
  • Removed anyway. I didn't insert it, not new '''tAD''' (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• The Daily Stormer was a prominent proponent—there are FAC reviewers who hate alliteration.
• The fliers urged the reader to visit the website and "join us in the struggle for global white supremacy"—read aloud, it's not clear what the antecedent of "us" is.
• its support of the Reclaim Australia rallies—shouldn't assume the reader knows what these are. I don't.
• "Endorsements"—we're given two endorsements—is that an exhasutive list?
  • Removing this section: It's very tangential to what they do. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)