Talk:First Wikipedia edit/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) 12:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will review shortly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

(talk page stalker) As a general rule of thumb, I would be very surprised if an article under 3,000 bytes of prose could meet both of the "broad in coverage" and "stable" criteria. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments based on Special:Permalink/1060536661

The product being sold was not actual ownership of the edit (as Wikipedia content is released under a copyleft license), but rather a "digital item" that records the purchaser's name alongside a URL of the edit and by itself confers the owner no special rights. can't see where this appears in the source, also seems factually incorrect. Wikipedia's license doesn't stop people from transferring ownership over material to which they hold copyright. Potentially it is derived from Which raises a question: could anybody sell an NFT based on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia where all the content is freely licensed for reuse? (which appears in the source), but that would be a misinterpretation (probably the hypothetical question raised is referring to whether I could create an NFT representing your edit, for example)
FN9 (The Signpost) is not RS (see WP:RSPWP) so cannot be used as a secondary source. The actual usages are uncontroversial and would fall under WP:PRIMARY if you cited the underlying source.
The relevance of A message sent by Sanger to the Nupedia mailing list said "Humor me [...] go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes". is unclear to me; reading the source and the context in which it appears makes it even more unclear.
the purchaser would be allowed to edit it -- it seems anyone would be able to edit it (per The Verge)
Perhaps worth noting, per VICE and The Verge, the proceeds would be used to (among other things) fund WT Social.

Fails GARC #2, and has some inaccuracies, so failing overall. Could be renominated after improvements. Note I haven't assessed criteria marked as neutral, but at a glance most seem fine except potentially 3(b). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Fair enough -- I wrote this article fairly quickly based on initial coverage, and a good number of subsequent articles have been written that allow for a little more detail. If I get around to a renomination, I think it will be a far better article. jp×g 13:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]