Talk:The Truth According to Wikipedia/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and the dichotomy between usage of experts versus amateur editors" I'm not sure I understand what this means
I personally am not keen on excessive personification of publications; The Times doesn't say things, but authors for The Times do claim things. This is especially true when it comes to reviews; the same newspaper will frequently carry multiple reviews for the same thing.
"Wikipedia increasingly was listed as one of the top most popular websites" Slightly clumsy
"Charles Leadbetter puts forth the notion that the greater online community is an effective method of increasing the ideals of democracy.[1] Leadbetter says the Web is the most likely medium which can increase individual freedoms and rights in totalitarian nations.[1]" This is also a little unclear. What is meant by "greater", here? And "most likely medium which can" is a very odd construction.
"The documentary utilized 60 seconds of footage from a video made by Chris Pirillo, who later objected that such usage was done without obtaining his permission or crediting him with the content.[10]" Could we have a bit more about this? What was the video of?
"for viewing on its YouTube channel the same year" It's not clear what the "its" refers to, here. The documentary? The channel? What?
Perhaps you could rename "production" to "production and release"? I am worried that the production information is a little light. Who funded the production of the documentary? Was it based on any prior published research? Does the director have a particular expertise in Internet studies? I think what's there is sufficient for GA purposes, but if there's anything else...
"Author Thomas Leitch in his book Wikipedia U wrote that Keen's perspective on Wikipedia in particular and Web 2.0 in general as expressed in the documentary was a significant viewpoint." I think this could be massaged a little
"Schonfeld assessed that Keen came away as the winner of his thesis by the end of the documentary. Of Keen's argument, Schonfeld pointed out that he did not address how researchers on Wikipedia could either be experts themselves, or subsequently become experts by virtue of improving the quality of articles on the website." This too- what does "winner of his thesis" mean? And I don't think "Of Keen's argument" is what you mean.
In a few places in the reception section, it feels a bit like you're quoting without quote-marks. I appreciate that quote overkill can be very frustrating, but presenting the reviewers' words in Wikipedia's voice is not the answer!
"Ernst-Jan Pfauth of The Next Web" What is this? An trade magazine? An ezine? Are we certain it's reliable?
What's the piece in the further reading? A university lecture?
I'm not keen on the navbox when this film is not listed; is there something in the MOS about this? Perhaps a navbox on criticism of Wikipedia, reliability of Wikipedia or media about Wikipedia would be in order?
I'm not convinced of the value of archiving or offering archive dates for the Film Quarterly. I also note that it's not via JSTOR.
If you're up to some translation, I notice that we have some mentions in respectable South American newspapers El Nacional and La Nación.

Sources generally look OK, pictures are fine (nice move on finding a free picture from the documentary!). I think you've done a good job with relatively few sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been over two weeks and there's been no response, so I'm going to close this review at this time. The article is not at all a bad one; please do renominate it once you have taken a look through the comments I've left above. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]