Talk:Pronunciation of GIF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 00:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Gug01 and will be reviewing your article! Gug01 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

thanks so much! with the backlog of this size, i was worried I'd be waiting forever... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Other than one or two small edits I asked for, we're basically done and this article is about to be passed! This has been my shortest GA review ever; I normally carry out reviews that drag on for weeks, months, or even entire seasons. I guess since the article's topic is relatively limited and you did a really good job covering it, there's just not much for me to add, at least in terms of GA-quality. Also, thanks for teaching me the "yo" template! Gug01 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: hehehe, i love the "yo" template—you're absolutely welcome, and thank you for the review! I'm glad this one was relatively speedy, too—i've seen the GAs that drag on forever, they ain't pretty. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article had old edit wars which have since subsided.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Copyright great!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pictures are extremely well-chosen! Good finds!
	7. Overall assessment.

Lead

No comments here; this is great! I'm surprised the topic is notable for an article; but others have already determined to be the case, and my only role is to assess its quality. Gug01 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Background

"The debate was described by The New York Times in 2013 as "decades old".[1]" - It would be helpful to have some more specific dates as to when exactly this debate started. Was it from the moment the GIF format was created, or starting at a later date? Gug01 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Time and ABC pin it as 1994, I'll set it there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Cause

"tergiversate", -> hyperlink to Wikitionary, not Wikipedia

From clicking on reference 3, it appears linguist Michael Dow did the analysis, which Gretchen McCulloch only reported on. A link to Dow's original study/journal article would be better sourcing than a Mental Floss article. Gug01 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Switched the hyperlinks! As for the second, McCulloch is herself a subject-matter expert, so I'd rather link to the mental floss article than the primary source of Dow's github blog. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I see. I kind of assumed that Dow's work was some sort of published research rather than a blog, so I think it's best to keep the mental floss source. Perhaps adding the primary source too - a double citation - would be best in that case. Gug01 (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

recited! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Arguments & Polling

Looks great! Gug01 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Incidents

A lot of the content in the Incidents section seems like it could also belong in the Arguments section; there are some arguments about the pronunciation raised here that might fit there better. Gug01 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I moved the Gizmodo argument, but everything else seems to be popular figures taking sides either for no reason or for commonly held reasons. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think your new division works really well! Gug01 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

why thank ya :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"According to Van der Meulen, this was time a person had given advice on the usage of a word they had coined.[13]" -> the first time? Gug01 (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

yyep theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Dictionaries

Looks great! I'll do a second check-around for sourcing & copyright, etc. later. Gug01 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: thanks so much! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone through all the sources, making sure they support the article's facts, which they do! Gug01 (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

we're gettin' there! aaa, this is quite exciting theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)