Talk:Seedfeeder/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, this has been languishing in the GAN queue for months, so perhaps editors feel, with some reason, that this is a 'difficult' nomination. It's a well-written article on a notable topic so it deserves a fair hearing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

References

The quality of the sources is problematic. I see that at the recent (second) AfD there was a robust defence of the article's sources. Even though Metro, Gawker and Cracked are in the main considered unreliable, the specific articles linked to were considered usable for notability on the grounds that these were thoughtful reviews, not connected to any sort of tabloid speculation or doubtful reporting which can get sources a bad name. That view is not shared by editors at the reliability noticeboard, so additional sources are required to establish notability. It is possible that the sources listed at Talk:Seedfeeder#EL & WP:NONENGEL may help in this regard.

Reference 1 needs a date (29 November 2014).

References 3 and 5 (Cush 2014), are, despite their different titles, the same, and need to be merged.

References 8 and 9 (Lamar 2013) are the same and need to be merged.

Reference 11 needs a date (January 2016) and publisher/website (New York Intelligencer).

Work

There seem to be 39 separate drawings in the category 'Sex drawings by User:Seedfeeder' and 3 drawings in the parent category 'Drawings by User:Seedfeeder', one of which is a barnstar. The remaining images are alternate versions of the same drawings.

In the list of bluelinked Wikipedia articles, Deep-throating is a redirect to Fellatio, so it should be removed from the list.

That leaves 24 named articles; it's unclear what the 35 articles mentioned by Der Standard may have been or whether we should accept that figure uncritically. Perhaps we'd do best to say 'according to Der Standard in 2015'.

Seedfeeder

The subject was self-described as a mechanical engineer, a fact that should be mentioned in the article. Signpost, In the Media, 26 November 2014 states that "Seedfeeder's identity is unknown, and nothing is known about him outside of what information he's offered on Wikipedia, where he has identified himself as a heterosexual male and a mechanical engineer." We can cite Signpost as effectively a primary source for both these facts (indeed, the whole of that quotation), which might go in a very brief section called "Biography". You might perhaps wish to make "Work" a subsection of that.

Images

Well, the two Seedfeeder images shown are relevant and correctly licensed.

I understand exactly why none of the 'Category:Sex drawings by User:Seedfeeder' are actually included in the article, but since "Wikipedia is not censored" (WP:NOTCENSORED), and since the article is principally about these images (as we know almost nothing about Seedfeeder apart from them), I'd say there was a clear reason to include at least one of them. You could consider cropping one, perhaps, but since the images themselves are already in use on some dozens of Wikipedia articles, it would seem entirely reasonable to include one or two of them here where they are discussed directly. You might want to include one in "Work", and you might want to put one of the images with supposed "racist and sexist undertones" in "Negative reactions", so that the text is suitably supported by the images under discussion.

Style

The article is written in an admirably clear and neutral style.

Summary

Well, that's all from me. The "References" fixes are required; all the rest are up for discussion really, though I think they should be considered carefully for inclusion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Two events have occurred relevant to this GAN. Firstly, both nom and nom's most likely replacement are currently busy and unable to attend to the review. Secondly, SusunW [has kindly analysed the sources used in the article, and (given that they are in deprecated media) also those sources' authors. The materials fail on both counts. As the remaining sources do not establish notability, and the as-yet-unused foreign supplementary sources rely on those analysed, notability cannot be established. I therefore recommend that the article be deleted at AfD, and am closing this GAN now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2021 (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.