Talk:The Pirate Bay/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

I don't generally bother with FA/GA stuff, but it strikes me that this article is quite outdated in parts. It speaks of the site as if its still operational etc. (It seems the site currently works only a search engine, not as tracker anymore [1]) If so, who's operating it? The same guys while waiting for the appeal? I assume this all because the GA happened in 2008. The article is terribly disorganized. The "Raid", "Legal issues" and "Trial" sections are miles apart with random stuff in between; "Service issues" is inserted between "legal issues" and "support campaign" (which is related to legal issue or the trial, I gather). There's lots of random stuff was added, like the "Video streaming" section (can this be under projects?) There are also a bunch of ^{[citation needed]} tags. Also NPOV problems, even in lead "the judge was accused of bias". By God? (The Pirate Bay trial is more up to date, but not anymore NPOV.) Another example, why is Piratbyrån's opinion of the site included in the "website design" section, but not that of, say MPAA? Pcap ping 13:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to inform the main contributors to the article about this review. I'm one of them, but don't have time to work on this article at the moment. The others might, though. Gary King (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the other two top three contributors. That should be sufficient. The extremely elaborate GA/GAR procedures is why don't bother with this shit usually, except when the article is horribly unworthy. A a GA is sort of maintenance promise, so they could at least watch the page. Pcap ping 23:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero progress here in 10 days or so. I'm removing the GA bit. Feel free to add it back if you address the above. Pcap ping 11:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]