Wikipedia:Peer review/SSSniperWolf/archive1

SSSniperWolf

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to help with getting it to GA status.

Thanks, Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 23:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is a biography, so having a "Biography" h2 just means that proper sectioning is missing, which means that WP:GACR#1b isn't fulfilled. "Controversy" sections have been deprecated; see WP:CSECTION. A GA-class biography can not have the body laid out as follows: "Biography", "Controversies", and "Personal life", which is the layout of the article at the time of my writing this. See PewDiePie for a YouTuber GA. The article about SSSniperWolf can not be as long of course, but the layout would have to be more similar to that for a GAN pass. —Alalch E. 08:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alalch E., maybe the section names could be fixed and put in the following order?

Early life
Career
Public image
Personal life

— Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 13:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, possibly. —Alalch E. 13:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alalch E., is that all? Are there any sourcing or style issues I could work on? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 13:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else could weigh in on that. —Alalch E. 13:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead needs to be expanded to accurately summarize all key points of the article. Skyshifter ^talk 14:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshifter, what about the sourcing? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 21:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ComicBook is generally considered a low-quality source and is "no consensus" on WP:VG/S. Many sources in the article were not reviewed or discussed by WP:RSP or other projects, but I didn't analyze them further. I noticed Tuko was considered reliable at WP:SSSOURCES, but titles such as "Sssniperwolf's parents: 5 quick facts that you need to know", "Who is Sssniperwolf's boyfriend? Is she married to Evan Sausage?" and "Who are Sssniperwolf's brothers? Does she have a half-brother?" makes me question that.

Also, I believe you can't upload images of living people as non-free content to illustrate their own biography. Skyshifter ^talk 21:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshifter, thanks for informing me. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 21:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshifter, is there anything else that I can do or is the article good to go for GAN? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshifter, the assesment of the Tuko source originates from @Siroxo's original table at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperwolf (2nd nomination).
Regarding ComicBook.com, a few things: when I worked on the article (diff, bigger diff) I decided not to include the section about the Omegle controversy at all. It was added later by another editor, and when the ComicBook.com source popped up, while it only mentioned the controversy as part of an article on Omegle shutting down, it was way more careful in its wording. So I added it and made the article reflect the wording ComicBook used. ComicBook.com also actively disclosed their conflict of interest on [1]. Sure, you're supposed to do that, but I consider it a sign they're not some totally careless tabloid. For the Nickelodeon Awards I see it as a primary source due to their COI, but that's fine as it's just there to support the fact she won.
That was ComicBook.com, what about the other source for the Omegle section, The Hindustan Times? I did some research of my own and it seems the reporting from The Hindustan Times is accurate - but they didn't seem to dig too deep either. And for a fairly serious accusation in a BLP I feel more digging is required, so I started a discussion about that.
Most sources are on WP:RSP of WP:VG/S. The following (not including primary sources and smaller print newspapers) are not:

Atomix.vg: they seem okay for uncontroversial statements, from what I can tell this is (or was) a print magazine. It's only used as an extra source to support the "is cosplayer" statement, I'd be more wary before using them for controversial statements, but this seems okay to me.
In The Know: is actually a Yahoo! brand.
Tuko: see above.
https://jmgmags.com/ : only used as an additional source to support the statement she featured on Ultimate Expedition, this is a print magazine that launched in 2009. This source hasn't been discussed before I think.
The Messenger [2] [3], has been discussed a bit. The two articles that are used show that The Messenger read and interpreted the court documents (just out of curiosity: are these public? Can I get them too?), of course we can't make overly bold statements based on this but I'd say it's reliable for what it is.
Insider: see WP:BI. I think Insider is mostly used as an additional supporting source. Not as the sole source for any bold claims.
Hindustan Times: that's WP:NEWSORGINDIA and I've seen nothing to suggest any kind of sponsoring for the articles that are used.

Note: while I commend Davest3r08's enthusiasm, getting SSSniperWolf to GA status is not a personal goal of mine. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion about Tuko is at an old AfD. I don't think a lot of it can be used in BLP, but it may help to demonstrate WP:BASIC. —siro χ o 04:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else that can be done to improve the article? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 18:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: During this peer review, in which multiple editors have offered feedback, the essentially new article saw various improvements, some relating to the points brought up here. The controversy section content was integrated with the rest of the prose, and the layout was improved, but subsequent comments about further improvements in this area were left on the talk page. Certain sources were scrutinized but this did not lead to an immediate conclusion about specific changes in this discussion. Considering that the goal of this peer review was finding room for improvement in order to bring the article closer to a GA pass, and as the GAN process has now been started, this review should not run concurrently with said process, and per WP:CLOSEPR#Closing reviews#4 it is time to close it. If the GAN fails, it will be possible to start a new review after a sufficient number of days has passed since the closure of this review (14). Thanks everyone for participating.—Alalch E. 20:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]