Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sitush (talk · contribs) 12:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick fail: article is subject to numerous disputes. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

NB: above was meant as a comment. I am probably too involved to review. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Do these disputes actually affect article stability? I nominated this article because I feel that it meets the GA criteria. I have never edited the article. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you are an involved editor, you should not have reviewed this. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I was not intending to review it, as I said above. And if you cannot see that the article is unstable then you really need ot back off nominating things in this way. It almost seems point-y. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm involved, but I've also reviewed a lot of GAs and I would also recommend quick failing this. The barrier to GA should be plainly obvious. Look at most GANs which need a little work to reach the status--the reviewer and nominator need to be able to hash out updates to the article and know they'll stick. With articles that are constantly in dispute, this is impossible. Just imagine proposing a few dozen changes to the GG article tomorrow. How many would be implemented? How long would it take? It's not feasible to review this article. Protonk (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am uninvolved and I am responding to the request at WT:GAN to reverse the actions of the reviewer, who indicates their role to review is unintentional. Rather than reverse the reviewer's actions, I am quick-failing this GA as I see that the article is far from stable: more than a dozen editors have made contributions in the last 24 hours alone. I also don't appreciate "drive-by" GA nominations; the nominator admits making no prior improvements to the article and may not even be committing to participate in the GA review. Finally, I respect the opinion of those above who are contributors and who recommend this quick-fail. I'm confident the editors who are dedicated to the improvement of this worthy article will continue to work to prepare it for it's GA nomination and will make that nomination when they are ready. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a bad faith nomination, seeking opinions that the article is not GA in order to prevail in a content dispute that seeks to exploit Wikipedia for the purpose of harassing some women who are targets of a faction. 01:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with nomination if the point is to get uninvolved editors involved to clean it up. It's clearly not a GA level article. Editors that are expecting to "review" this article will be sadly disappointed. Editors that become motivated to contribute, however, are welcome. They should have no illusion that this article is "Good" in any sense of the word and should move on if reviewing is their major focus. --DHeyward (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's no good expecting an article to pass Good Article criteria when we have to restrict who is allowed to edit the discussion page. The best we can ask is that the state of the article has remained fairly stable for months and gives a reasonably clear idea of what "Gamergate" is about. It does that pretty well, given the circumstances. In many ways it reminds me of the article about the CRU email theft (which thankfully didn't get to the point of being called by the misleading name "Climategate". --TS 23:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Climategate and List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Journalism and academics--DHeyward (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)