Talk:Protests against SOPA and PIPA/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Rjjiii (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2022 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Rjjiii (talk · contribs) 09:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I can't pass the article as written. (This is my first Good Article review. Let me know if you have any questions, issues, etc.)

The issues that I found with the article were regarding criteria 1, 2, and 3. The article is stable and contains valuable images. The lead has some slight NPOV issues, but I think that if rewritten for clarity, they'll be resolved.

For point 1 (Well-written), I think the lead is confusing due to some parts being out of order or mixed up. Several of the headings should likely be re-titled to give clearer indications of their contents. The final 2 paragraphs of the GoDaddy boycott are not clear.

For point 2 (Accuracy), the article is actually full of great sources and it seems to be accurate. I have 2 main issues with the sources. Many sources have dead links. These would benefit from an archive link if possible or a replacement. There are also several sources that appear to violate WP:SELFPUB. With the quantity of great 2nd party sources, these can likely be replaced.

For point 3 (Thorough), the article has 3 sections that are very small. These should likely be expanded or incorporated into another section. The article also lacks a clear layman's explanation of the bill's perceived danger. Finally, there are a handful of times something is mentioned but little further information is given including Bill Keller, Fight for the Future, the NYT opinion, and Google Bombs.

1. Well Written

  • The lead has some issues with chronology. "These followed smaller protests in late 2011." and "The move to a formal protest was initiated" both appear before any concrete information on the protests. The article's body text does not seem to define what Fight for the Future was but it seems very relevant for the article. Without being prescriptive, one possible format for the lead could be an introductory paragraph, some background behind the bill/protests, an overview of the protests, and the response to the protests.
  • The section "Protests of November 16, 2011 ("American Censorship Day")" has a confusing title and very limited information. "Protests of November 16, 2011" could likely be omitted from the heading. Here are some ideas for expanding it: The article says "SOPA was discussed". How? What parts of it were discussed? Why is it significant? Did it influence Mozilla or Tumblr? Can we get more information on American Censorship Day? What was the effect? Did congress respond? Did it affect events later in the article? Did people contact congress? Also, the caption for the image in this section should make it clear that it was the "American Censorship Day" protest or it will appear to represent the 2012 protests.
  • "Google bomb" is not a common term. What is a Google bomb?
  • "However, on December 29, 2011 itself, " is strange phrasing.
  • The final paragraph of the GoDaddy boycott confuses me. The sources at the end appear to claim that it was a failure and that it worked because GoDaddy changed their policy.
  • The references to the DDL intercettazioni and Italian Wikipedia blackout would make more sense if they were placed together.
  • "The blocking action was purposely not complete;" Why? What was the purpose? I don't think the article says.
  • "Related protests" should be something like "ACTA" or "ACTA Protests".

2. Accuracy

2.1 References

2.2 Bibliography

2.2 External Links

http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/images/sopa-opera-count.png This infographic is great. Is it an external link because the image in non-free? The information conveyed could be packed into a free image that would benefit more readers.

3. Thorough

  • The article would really benefit from a plain and clear explanation of the perceived problems with the bill. The explanations provided use general language, "quotes", and jargon. It would be more clear if there was explanation of what was in the bill, how that would change the law, and what was types of activities could have become illegal.
  • Who is Bill Keller? He seems relevant but the article's body text does not explain his significance before quoting him.
  • The article states "The New York Times described the protest as "Noted, but as a Brief Inconvenience"[111] and, as well, offered an opinion about the protest and possible accomplishments." but does not appear to describe the opinion.
  • The "Legacy" section is very short. If it can't be expanded, perhaps it should be included with the impact and aftermath.
  • The "Physical demonstrations" section is very small. Some things to consider expanding in it: How large were the physical protests? Who organized the physical protests? Were there connections between the online and physical protests? Is there any significance to the 4 cities listed as to why they saw protests? Why were some protesters arrested? Were there other physical protests? Was the bill especially notable in Russia?
  • Because the "Physical demonstrations" is so small, its images bleed over into the following section and appear to illustrate that section.
  • Is there any information about how "#altwiki" worked out? I realize there may not be a reliable source for this.

4. NPOV

  • The lead first paragraph reads strangely to me. The phrase "contained measures that could possibly infringe online freedom of speech" seems to downplay the protesters issue. I would consider putting the information in a more chronological order. After the first sentence (which is fine) I would expect the first paragraph to explain briefly who wanted the bill, what they wanted it for, who opposed it, and either how or why they opposed it.

5. Stable

  • It's stable.

6. Images

  • Screenshots and photos are both solid.
This one was withdrawn by nominator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA/GA1&oldid=1130752625"