Talk:Metaverse/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 17:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a quickfail. There are several reasons that combine to deliver this one. Reference quality needs bolstering in several areas, and the lead section needs more references to fix citation tags. I also have concerns about stability in the long run given the topic. (I also suggest adding alt text to the image, but that's not a reason for the quickfail). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

References

• Sources in the lead section are tagged "better source needed" (for Snow Crash coining the term) and "page needed" (for a book). I wonder if [1] or even [2] would be useful. [3] also turned up in one of my searches and seems like a good addition.
• There are three citation calls to a Medium blog, which is generally not considered a reliable source. Other references to excise:
  • The Rolling Stone Culture Council post is also generally unreliable. Per WP:RSP, There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are self-published sources and are, in most aspects, equivalent to Forbes and HuffPost contributors..
  • Metro (WP:METRO)
• User:Headbomb/unreliable might be a good user script for the nominator to use in the future to help detect sources with possible issues. Given the topic, many medium- to low-quality sources will need to be culled on a regular basis.

Addressing copyvio

I examined the four red- and yellow-flagged sources in Earwig, which were also a sticking point in GA1. I believe they copied from us, so I don't have an issue with them. A less experienced GA editor might not understand how Earwig flags pages like this (it does hide most mirrors of Wikipedia).

Depth of coverage and stability

The metaverse is a bleeding-edge topic. In the three-plus months this sat at GA, there were more than 50 edits, a significant chunk of them rolled back by the nominator. The nature of this page on a buzzy tech topic means it will always need extra attention to defend it from POV- and promo-pushing editors, so this is partly appreciated.

I find myself asking if it's just too soon for a GA on the metaverse while applauding your efforts to keep the page free of promotional material. Increased depth and use of academic sources, which are going to become available constantly in the coming years given the profile of the topic, would provide a key step toward GA. This is quite a highly consulted page, so improvements like this are strongly encouraged for the benefit of our readers.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.