Talk:Jason Moore (Wikipedia editor)

(Redirected from Draft talk:Jason Moore)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Bilorv in topic GA

Delete draft pages? edit

Since the dust has settled, perhaps the following pages can finally be deleted?

These seem unnecessary, but I'll let others decide. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd leave them as not harming anyone and WP:RDRAFT says to keep at least the middle one czar 20:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jason Moore (Wikipedia editor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vortex3427 (talk · contribs) 23:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm planning to review this article. This is my first GA review, so please notify me if you have any concerns. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 23:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • As a prolific volunteer, he personally documented the pandemic's burgeoning reach across multiple U.S. states, business sectors, and communities. How about something like He documented its...? You've already established that he is a prolific editor, and I don't see what "personally" adds in this context.
    • Edited
  • He has described being motivated by said he is motivated by
    • Source go out of date over time, so this language hedges rather than assuming he still is motivated by these things czar 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • on the developing event in real-time Maybe drop developing or on the event as it developed?
    • I think "real-time" is useful context for a general reader czar 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • resulting series of protests series of protests following the murder of George Floyd?
  • Maybe link outreach in the final sentence in 'Wikipedia'?
    • It's a dictionary word and not quite the same as the contents of outreach so I'd prefer not
  • What makes Portland Mercury reliable?
    • It's a prominent alt weekly with a dedicated staff and sizable print circulation, and it's only used for local, unexceptional claims. czar 00:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • You could wikilink Ref 15 to Wikipedia @ 20.
    • Done
  • I spotchecked Refs 1, 3 and 4. I noticed that Ref 4 says he currently works at Oregon Symphony while Personal life mentions he previously worked there.
    • Yes, based on later refs it's assumed that he changed jobs czar 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • All images properly tagged.
  • Could you elaborate on unfamiliar term digital strategist in personal life, or adapt the phrasing from the sources?
    • Both sources are similarly vague on the contents of the job and we don't have an article on digital consulting; it's a fairly common job title so I don't think it will cause issues czar 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's all from me. Ping me when you've addressed all of these.

Thanks, @Vortex3427! Commented above and appreciate the review. czar 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Now passing this. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 04:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Did you know nomination edit

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Improved to Good Article status by Czar (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 15:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC).Reply

czar 00:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Sorry, but to my understanding, linking from the Main Page to userspace is not allowed. WP:WAWI, part of the MoS, says that links to Wikipedia should be treated as external links, so linking to a user page in DYK would be the same as linking to an external site. This makes sense — userspace is not part of the encyclopedia proper, and to maintain neutrality in the encyclopedia proper, we should not be giving any advantage to ourselves over other online spaces. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Alright then, removed the userpage link. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   @Czar, nice work on this short yet good-quality article! GAs covering Internet culture are gemstones; we could always use more of them. I have a preference for ALT1, although I'd switch up the sentence structure to "... that Jason Moore is another believer?" which IMO is even hookier. It's up to y'all whether the username will be better off capitalised or not. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
04:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • ALT2: ... that Jason Moore is another believer?
  • ALT3: ... that Jason Moore and other Wikipedia editors curated the entry about the January 6 United States Capitol attack in real time?
  • Added ALT2 per the review and ALT3 per my talk page. I lean towards ALT2 as the hookiest. fyi @Your Power czar 14:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Looks good to me, @Czar   My personal pick would also be ALT2. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
      📝 "Don't get complacent..."
      14:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
      I think it would be misleading to lowercase Moore's username, as that's not the way he styles it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
      Unless the norms have changed recently, the point of DYK has always been to take some artistic license to make some aspect of the article interesting (hook-y) to pique a general reader's interest. The lower case isn't disingenuous in this sense. If we can't link the userpage for style reasons, this would be my preference to an otherwise drier hook. czar 01:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA edit

I must say I have a hard time contemplating that an article about a living person that doesn't have his birth year down, let alone parents, education, etc., could possibly be a "good article". This article is very uneven and spotty in its coverage. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article covers the full breadth of what has been covered in reliable sources. That's the GA criteria. czar 04:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Seriously? No reliable source for birth year or parentage, etc. for someone who is so involved with WP that recursiveness calls for providing a page on that type of notability alone? Why doesn't he just give an interview like countless other celebrities have done, thereby providing "reliable" info cited on their bio pages as per WP:ABOUTSELF. Martindo (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Plenty of notable people have no reliably sourced information on vital dates and parentage. This is nothing new—it goes back to antiquity and our articles reflect the sources. If you have an issue with the GA criteria, take it up on that page. czar 00:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
See WP:BLPPRIVACY: "many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private". I have long observed an insistence by many volunteers to add poorly sourced, speculative or inference-based dates of birth for "completeness". Many of the DOBs I take the time to fact check are wrong, and moreover, have a high danger of citogenesis. There is no requirement for a Wikipedia volunteer to make their DOB, parentage etc. public, and no requirement on any article to include information that is not verifiable and due weight. — Bilorv (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
That's a good point, but this guy is being celebrated as a major contributor to WP, so why can't he even clarify birth year?
A bigger issue is the recursive nature of notability based on wikipedia work. What's next? A page with top ten contributors like lifetime Homerun stats? How about most lifetime Hits=user views of pages personally created? What about a Gold Glove award for editors who have the fewest percentage of reverts? It strikes me as bizarre, even self-congratulatory on the part of WP. Martindo (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Moore is not directly notable based on Wikipedia work, but notable based on coverage in reliable sources about his Wikipedia work. This is exactly the same standard applied to any individual. You can either think that my comment is a good point, or that Moore should clarify his birth year, but I'm confused as to how you could think both. — Bilorv (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply