Talk:Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: CommunityNotesContributor (talk · contribs) 23:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bit out of my usual scope, but I saw this on DYK and it looks like a fun article to review. Will give comments in the next few days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor:

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the subject.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses no fair use media.

Lead

-I feel the link to missing treasure is a bit misleading, since it isn't exactly buried treasure. The treasure hunt is what it is referred to as, so that is fine to keep, but the hyperlink to missing treasure feels excessive.

-Specify if Howells suing is in the same month, because as of now it is unclear.

Background

-Nakamoto is hyperlinked twice in this segment. Remove the second one.

Early Bitcoin Mining

-Looks good

Disposal of hard drive

-Looks good

Search attempts

-Looks good

Litigation

-Looks good

Opinion

-"Analytics firm Chainalysis estimated in 2020 that 3.7 million bitcoin (out of an all-time total of 21 million bitcoin) were lost like Howell's." Is Howell's bitcoin 3.7 million of the total, or is this just citing other incidents like Howell's? This sentence is confusing and I'm not quite sure what its purpose is.

Overall

-Looks pretty solid bar a few minor points. Will begin the spotcheck once the above are addressed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all above. Added missing treasure to see also instead, you're right it's very WP:EASTEREGG in hindsight. Otherwise removed the chainalysis statement, as in the article there is no direct connection to the landfill Bitcoin. CNC (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor Spotcheck is mostly good.

-Minor nitpick, but source 12 only states that he was one of five online, not that he was among the first five bitcoin miners. Some of the other sources verify this, such as the The Times source, among others, though be wary if only he himself is saying this to say it's according to him.

-Source 10 is Business Insider, which is of dubious reliability with the exception of its culture section per Wikipedia:BUSINESSINSIDER. Double check the veracity of this source, as if it can't be attributed per the guidelines at the noticeboard, it will have to be removed.

-What are the reliability of Hammond's documentary, Benzinga, WION, and Decrypt?

Only real hiccups. Rest looks fine. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]