Talk:CLODO/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 09:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article. Full comments shortly. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose issues. In the first sentence of the lead, "active during the from 1979 till 1983" is a particular howler; there's nothing so egregious through the rest of the article, but a general polishing up of the prose certainly wouldn't go amiss. (I also notice, e.g. "The acronym 'clodo' is a slang term for 'bum' or 'homeless' in French", but clodo meaning "homeless person" isn't an acronym; "CLODO rejected the use of computers for the purposes of 'surveillance by means of badges and cards, instrument of profit maximization for the bosses and of accelerated pauperization'" has grammar problems; I don't fully understand what "they planned to carry out actions geared towards an impending telecommunications explosion" is meant to mean.)
   Regarding MOS compliance, I do not think that the list of "Other attacks" is compliant with MOS:EMBED's instruction to use embedded lists "only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose". There is also a claim in the lead that CLODO's "most notable" attack was the one on SPERRY; this is not supported by the body text.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I am not sure that all of the sources used satisfy WP:RS. In particular, there are three references to Matthew Littleton's MA thesis, but per WP:SCHOLARSHIP Masters' theses are not generally reliable unless they can be shown to have "significant scholarly influence". I am also concerned that my spotchecks have revealed basic errors of fact (Processed World is not a French magazine, and it wasn't where CLODO sent their 1983 interview) and multiple occasions where the source cited does not support the claim made: the blockquote beginning "we are workers in the field of dp" does not appear in the source it is attributed to; the claim that "CLODO's attacks, along with other contemporary anarchist groups, prompted the Swedish Defense Ministry to recommend new guidelines around monitoring computer security" isn't supported by the source cited (indeed, it is contradicted by the source cited, which dates the Swedish Defense Ministry's revised guidelines to 1979!); in general the article is insufficiently careful about when sources say "CLODO claimed responsibility for" vs. "CLODO carried out", and in some cases actions are attributed to CLODO when the source doesn't outright say either of these things!

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The lead says CLODO was active for four years from 1979 to 1983, but there is absolutely nothing said about the group's activities in 1981 or 1982.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No obvious neutrality issues

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No concerns with stability

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I don't see that the image really adds anything; I am concerned that though it is tagged as being released under the free art license, I am sure that the various newspapers shown have copyright over the texts reproduced and I see no explanation as to why that does not apply.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, I just see too many issues with this article at the moment for it to be a GA. It needs a long list converting into prose, a general cleanup of the prose, and all of the citations carefully checking to ensure that they do actually support the claims being made. If anything is known about the group's activities in 1981-82, that should be added. The issues are severe enough that I do not think it would be useful to put this review on hold and try to address them during it; I will fail this review and suggest that you take as much time as is needed to fix these issues before renominating. Do feel free to drop a note on my talkpage when you think it is ready if you want a pre-nomination look-over, or when you renominate if you would like me to re-review.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)