1a Regarding 2nd sentence of lede, punctuation is our friend. Synopsis: too many "it"s- "it appears to be better lit"- what is it, the figure, the building or the picture? Per
WP:LQ place punctuation outside of quotes. Per
WP:SEAOFBLUE remove
Spain. Rework first sentence of last Parker para to remove brackets; best to break it up since it's too long. Categories should be alphabetized. 1b WP:LEAD- intro should summarize article. Lede talks about The Ring, but the body never mentions it. Probably move the analogy further down to History if there's nothing else to say.
Per
WP:CATDEF: "... the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first."
As far as that thing about The Ring goes, I had it in there originally to support one of the proposed DYK hooks when I did not know how long the finished article was going to be. Obviously that's no longer an issue, and I see it has been moved into the body.
Daniel Case (
talk)
15:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)reply
"Normally" doesn't mean they must or should. I don't think that was worth undoing, and don't see a great deal of logic in the subjective significance you assigned to the categories.
However, more important is this: is having "whose title was derived from the plaintext of a base64 string written on a DVD sent to GadgetZZ.com" in the very first sentence really the most notable/interesting/readable thing about the video that'll grab readers, or should it be moved further down in the lede?
Ribbet32 (
talk)
03:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Verifiable with no original research
2a Review pending
2b Review pending
2c. Review pending
2d. Checks free, aside from mirror
Broad in its coverage:
3a. Covers pretty much what I knew of the video, in a sensible sequence- video, history, interpretations. Aftermath- anything since 2015? Any cultural impact? Are people still talking about this?
[1][2]
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
4. "disturbing" in lede- inherent in tortured and mutilated anyway. "unknown origin" in lede- some will claim it's proven, so maybe unconfirmed, uncertain or unproved? What's the logic of some of the See also entries? The
Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion has nothing to do with this video.
Done I think someone else added the Max Headroom thing back when the creator and purpose of this video were unknown. Once that changed there was less in common. I also removed
creepypasta as too broad other than "something that got enough attention on Reddit to have its own sub and creeps people out".
Cicada 3301, however, still seems sort of relevant (but of course per
WP:SA it needs an explanation)
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Ribbet32: I see Magic took that out of the lede; I have put in a sentence about how there was no claim to authorship in the video at the end of the first graf, which should be more neutral and sets up the next two grafs of people decoding it.
Daniel Case (
talk)
15:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute.
5. No edit wars taking place
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio
Criterion 2 review Thank you
Daniel Case and
MagicatthemovieS for your work in addressing my initial concerns. I have now had a look at the references. Normally
WP:LEADCITE would be a concern, but in this case the subject's history is so obscure and contains potentially defamatory details, so this is acceptable.
We're both getting needlessly argumentative here when we shouldn't be. We're not opponents in this GAC. The point was RS; but the question is now moot.
Ribbet32 (
talk)
07:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Per 2c, tortured and mutilated women in lede: Ref refers to "a woman being strangled, a disemboweled body, and other graphic scenes"- so that's one woman being tortured, no word on whether the mutilated body is female. Refs 1 and 2 are duplicates. The "creepy, unsettling, The Ring" bit verges on
WP:WEASEL, attributing those opinions to "Viewers" when they should be attributed to "Slate journalist Lily Hay Newman". Washington Post does not support assertion "pointing to his initials watermarked in the video".Ribbet32 (
talk)
03:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Daniel, what's your opinion on this new Popular culture bit? The one-point list seems pointless. Maybe it could be tucked under History or Interpretations? Or removed altogether?
@
Ribbet32: Per
WP:IPC, I removed it entirely. Knowing that it was in a documentary doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding, anymore than a mention in the documentary that there's a Wikipedia article on it would add anything to that documentary.
Daniel Case (
talk)
15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
1a Regarding 2nd sentence of lede, punctuation is our friend. Synopsis: too many "it"s- "it appears to be better lit"- what is it, the figure, the building or the picture? Per
WP:LQ place punctuation outside of quotes. Per
WP:SEAOFBLUE remove
Spain. Rework first sentence of last Parker para to remove brackets; best to break it up since it's too long. Categories should be alphabetized. 1b WP:LEAD- intro should summarize article. Lede talks about The Ring, but the body never mentions it. Probably move the analogy further down to History if there's nothing else to say.
Per
WP:CATDEF: "... the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first."
As far as that thing about The Ring goes, I had it in there originally to support one of the proposed DYK hooks when I did not know how long the finished article was going to be. Obviously that's no longer an issue, and I see it has been moved into the body.
Daniel Case (
talk)
15:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)reply
"Normally" doesn't mean they must or should. I don't think that was worth undoing, and don't see a great deal of logic in the subjective significance you assigned to the categories.
However, more important is this: is having "whose title was derived from the plaintext of a base64 string written on a DVD sent to GadgetZZ.com" in the very first sentence really the most notable/interesting/readable thing about the video that'll grab readers, or should it be moved further down in the lede?
Ribbet32 (
talk)
03:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Verifiable with no original research
2a Review pending
2b Review pending
2c. Review pending
2d. Checks free, aside from mirror
Broad in its coverage:
3a. Covers pretty much what I knew of the video, in a sensible sequence- video, history, interpretations. Aftermath- anything since 2015? Any cultural impact? Are people still talking about this?
[1][2]
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
4. "disturbing" in lede- inherent in tortured and mutilated anyway. "unknown origin" in lede- some will claim it's proven, so maybe unconfirmed, uncertain or unproved? What's the logic of some of the See also entries? The
Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion has nothing to do with this video.
Done I think someone else added the Max Headroom thing back when the creator and purpose of this video were unknown. Once that changed there was less in common. I also removed
creepypasta as too broad other than "something that got enough attention on Reddit to have its own sub and creeps people out".
Cicada 3301, however, still seems sort of relevant (but of course per
WP:SA it needs an explanation)
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Ribbet32: I see Magic took that out of the lede; I have put in a sentence about how there was no claim to authorship in the video at the end of the first graf, which should be more neutral and sets up the next two grafs of people decoding it.
Daniel Case (
talk)
15:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute.
5. No edit wars taking place
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio
Criterion 2 review Thank you
Daniel Case and
MagicatthemovieS for your work in addressing my initial concerns. I have now had a look at the references. Normally
WP:LEADCITE would be a concern, but in this case the subject's history is so obscure and contains potentially defamatory details, so this is acceptable.
We're both getting needlessly argumentative here when we shouldn't be. We're not opponents in this GAC. The point was RS; but the question is now moot.
Ribbet32 (
talk)
07:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Per 2c, tortured and mutilated women in lede: Ref refers to "a woman being strangled, a disemboweled body, and other graphic scenes"- so that's one woman being tortured, no word on whether the mutilated body is female. Refs 1 and 2 are duplicates. The "creepy, unsettling, The Ring" bit verges on
WP:WEASEL, attributing those opinions to "Viewers" when they should be attributed to "Slate journalist Lily Hay Newman". Washington Post does not support assertion "pointing to his initials watermarked in the video".Ribbet32 (
talk)
03:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Daniel, what's your opinion on this new Popular culture bit? The one-point list seems pointless. Maybe it could be tucked under History or Interpretations? Or removed altogether?
@
Ribbet32: Per
WP:IPC, I removed it entirely. Knowing that it was in a documentary doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding, anymore than a mention in the documentary that there's a Wikipedia article on it would add anything to that documentary.
Daniel Case (
talk)
15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply