Talk:9gag/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 18:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I will be reviewing this. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 18:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this will be a quick fail. There are way too many major issues and the article is far from being near to good article status.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): 
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Starting off with the main problem — 3a or major aspects. The article's history section is too brief and it covers nothing pertaining to the subject after 2015, which would cover half of its history. The explanation of its early history could be improved and expanded as well. The same is applicable for the next section "Content and authorship" — which also fails 3b or that it is not focused properly, and 4 or that it is not a fair representation without bias. The section does not even cover the topic of followers or the website's sub-sections or the usage of bots to boost likes — all things that should be in a section which is titled that. Rather, it strays off in the second paragraph which is essentially criticizing the platform, and this circles back to my initial point that it fails 3a; that is, it does not cover every major aspect. The article is about a topic that has been the center of many controversies — enough for it to have a separate "Controversies" section of its own — and it does not even have a "Critical reception" section. Because of this, it also fails 4; which is that the article is not a neutral or fair representation of the topic. Also, there should be another section discussing its voting process and how the content is created, along with its different communities.
Another significant issue is its referencing — failing 2a and 2b, which are its reference section formatting and citations to reliable sources respectively; the major problem being with the latter. A lot of sources used in the article are primary sources and will need to be switched out for third party or independent sources — which should be possible for a platform as visible as this. Apart from that, some sources that are not primary sources in the article have questionable reliability. Sources that are generally considered to be reliable — and would discuss a website like this — would come from reputed websites, magazines, journals, news outlets, etc. A few of the references will need to be replaced by more reliable sources. All of this would fall under 2b. For 2a, the references will need to be properly formatted using additional parameters.
Other issues include a short lead, relatively poor quality of prose, absence of its logo or logos of sub-9GAG websites, no supporting images or screenshots of its main page, and some odd phrasing which will require copyediting — sentences like "Starting the company under a "Just for Fun" mentality" should really be phrased differently. But even this is a relatively minor point compared to other significant problems the article has. I hope this will help. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)