Talk:Ethereum/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: David Gerard (talk · contribs) 22:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSED

Review started by an ineligible reviewer, someone who made significant contributions to the article. Nomination was returned to the reviewing pool. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sourcing is still not good. There should be nothing with even slightly questionable sources - nothing primary, nothing from user-sourced content, nothing from blogs, nothing from trivial non-mainstream sources, etc. Every source needs to be a verifiable, reliable third-party source to the highest of Wikipedia standards - remember that Good Articles is the standard below Featured Articles. The sourcing on the article has improved markedly in the past few weeks, but it's nothing like there yet. It isn't helped by Ethereum partisans on the talk page arguing that they don't need proper sources because having a repo up on Github counts as a high-quality source for Wikipedia purposes. (It doesn't.) This strongly suggests that the article will still be prone to partisans adding bad sources.
Skimpy on content - the article feels thin, and there are lots of things a reader might want to know, and that an Ethereum advocate would want the world to know, that aren't present or aren't sourced to excellent sources. For many, it's questionable that excellent Wikipedia-quality sources exist. It needs more, and anything added needs the best Wikipedia-quality sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, I don't believe you can be the primary reviewer on this nomination; one of the requirements is that you not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review, per WP:GANI. Since you have made more than a quarter of the most recent 250 edits to this article, that would seem to disqualify you.

This doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to make the above comments in a review opened by someone else, but it does mean that you shouldn't be doing the review yourself. I am happy to put the nomination back into the reviewing pool for someone else—who has not contributed to the article—to eventually select for reviewing. In the interim, further work can be done to improve the sourcing to bring it to GA level. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, wherever these comments can be used :-) You'll see I've been saying pretty much the same things on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll put this back into the reviewing pool. I did notice your talk page comments (and also edit summaries on the article)... BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: What is going on here is Wikipedia:Navel-gazing. This is a weak article, not even close to a good article. But more important, what is your motivation to nominate this for a Good Article, and then immediately review it as not good? Is this justification to continue your excessively-vigilant patrol of the sources on this page (and some sort of official nomination to continue, even if you nominate yourself)? The problem that is going on from my vantage point is the vigilance that is being put to quality patrol here. David, you are essentially biting the newcomers by reverting changes, section blanking, and immediately flagging edits as low quality sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&oldid=715456900 is a perfect example. In this one you wrote "(NYT.com is normally an RS, but you're citing an arguably oversimplified technical description to a finance journalist)" in your edit summary. You mean that a finance journalist at NYT is not qualified to say something about ethereum? This page is not a BLP or MDRS. BTW- In this talk page section above we were talking about your section blanking due to you not believing the citations are appropriate. In some cases blogs are fine, such as blogs.wsj.com, blog.microsoft.com, blog.ethereurm.org, etc. This technology is really too new to find out what is correct and what is not, at least this month it is unlikely to happen. Take it easy in the meantime, its just a new page on a developing open source technology. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legionof7 nominated the article, not David Gerard. David Gerard was just the first user to click "start review" on the GA nominations page and start a review discussion. Anyone may nominate an article, and any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with Wikipedia content policies may review an article nominated at the GA nominations page against the good article criteria. The problem that BlueMoonset pointed out was that David Gerard is not sufficiently uninvolved, so the nomination has now been relisted on the GA nominations page for someone else to eventually select for reviewing. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From David Gerard's Sourcing bullet above: "There should be nothing with even slightly questionable sources - nothing primary..." As discussed ad nauseam above, primary sources are often acceptable. I think all the primary references in the article are fine, though the content may be re-arranged. Sanpitch (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.