Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Guerillero | My Talk 19:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

  • The nominator of this seems to have no major edits of the article. Does LiteralKa, the main writer of this article, agree that it should go under a GAR/ want it to go under a GAR?
I think that a GAR would do it good. I look forward to the results. LiteralKa (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I should finish my part of the review soon. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

there are a good deal of issues here

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead contains facts such as the GNAA "an anti-blogging Internet trolling organization" that have no corespondent citations or coverage in the body. The article seems to read well with no obvious grammar issues.
  • Added mention of anti-blogging trolling to the body. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Several sources are either primary sources (19,21) or are self published by the organization itself (1,2,3,10,16,24,25,36,41). 11 appears to attribute statements to the incorrect author. and 39 fails to back up any statements. Neither Slashdot(29) or blogs (20) should be used as a source. Quotes in other languages (13,34) need to be translated into English.
  • Removed most of those sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is Google translate ok for the translation, or should we find a native speaker to do it? Qrsdogg (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I tried to trim out most of the self-published sources, as of know I think the only times the group itself is being cited is for their location, founding date, president, claim of responsibility for Apple hack, and objection to the Goatsec arrest. Do you think these fits with the guideline (WP:ABOUTSELF) or do they need to go? Qrsdogg (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I will need to to a very close read. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I would suggest using the reference names instead of numbers, as numbers change (especially when the article is undergoing a GAR ;]) LiteralKa (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, that led to a bit of a headache last night :) Qrsdogg (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I will see what I can do. 4chan as a source? Really? --Guerillero | My Talk 17:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not like it cites a /b/ thread, just the news page. LiteralKa (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    There is very little about the organization itself and it reads like a list of exploits.
  • I've added a bit more about the organization, but it's going to be hard to include many details without using self-published sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    This part looks great
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I will put this on hold. Have fun.

None of my lists of problematic sources or quotes is complete. But they should let you get an idea of the issues at hand. The citation needed tag needs to be filled in too. I am half tempted to fail this now in light of the huge citation section.

Thanks for not quickfailing it :) As I'm sure you know, this is a tough subject to find good sources on. I'll get to work on cleaning up the issues you mentioned, I bet we can really improve the page though. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've tried to go through and flesh out the article and add some context. I think I've done most of what I can, the remaining issues I see (as of this revision) are: two uncited passages (the one with the tag and the last sentence of the first paragraph), possible issues with self-published/reliability of remaining sources, and the section on Goatse security is a bit thin. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep. The Publications section is iffy due to the fact that only one author is a member and the GNAA didn't sanction the fairly normal research paper. This could be done by sunday.--Guerillero | My Talk 00:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Both authors are members. LiteralKa (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Does the paper have anything to do with GNAA as an organisation though? AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears to be a standard math/computer science paper on images. (It uses the Lenna test image) The only mention of the organization is the email address of Garry Nigger.--Guerillero | My Talk 01:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The paper was released by the GNAA. It shouldn't have to require that it discuss the GNAA to merit inclusion. LiteralKa (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I removed it. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It's Niger, not Nigger. LiteralKa (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Nowhere in the paper does it mention that it was publish or released by the GNAA. Do you have a source (that is not the gnaa) to back up your claim. (see WP:BURDEN) --Guerillero | My Talk 02:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I added it as a citation, not a "publications" entry. Burden of proof is not on me, but I will be more than happy to assist. :) LiteralKa (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the status on this review? No comments in almost a month. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I will do a final read through tonight. I was waiting to see if more changes were going to be made --Guerillero | My Talk 15:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


Due to some continual sourcing issues. The BoingBoing article, third party posted court document, about page et al. are either questionable sources or fail RS. The article is closer to the criteria but it is not fully there. Because of this, I am closing this review as a fail. If you have an issue with this please post on my talk page or ask for a GAR. thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 05:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)