Talk:15.ai/GA1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:10, 11 June 2022

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SirGallantThe4th (talk · contribs) 23:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your GA nomination. I will be reviewing this article using the template below. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well written throughout, though the "Resistance from voice actors" subsection seems redundant? I suppose it's not exactly the same as the mention of impersonation and fraud above it, but more information included there would be useful.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Looks good. The lead section summarizes the article concisely.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Notes and references look good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The other sources look reliable, but there are a few instances of potentially unreliable sources: the main website itself, the Twitter account of the subject, the 4chan link to the preservation project, and the YongYea Youtube video. These are generally unreliable because they are self-published sources, but according to Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works, even though non-self-published sources are preferable, self-published sources can be used to support a direct quotation. (1) and (2) are used to corroborate the names of the developer and the model, so I believe this is okay (though obviously it is preferable that a non-self-published source be used, if at all possible). (3) is... iffy. Definitely peculiar to use 4chan as a source, but in this case, it is being used to support a direct quotation. I will give it a pass, though anyone else can veto my assessment if necessary. As for (4), Youtube is not considered a reliable source (I learned it the hard way, myself) so that citation should be removed entirely, even if the publisher is generally known to be reputable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The phrase "—as is the case with 15.ai—" in the "Copyrighted material in deep learning subsection" should be left out because the citation itself does not say this directly, and instead can be inferred by the reader. The citation attached to the sentence explaining how the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary reduced the set of phonemes from 50 to 39 doesn't seem to explicitly support it. Is there a better citation that explains these changes explicitly instead of just linking the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary's home page?
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main topic is addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good amount of focus. The Troy Baker scandal did seem to delve into the Twitter exchange quite a bit, but considering that they were also the focus of attention in the cited articles, this should be fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	WP:EDITORIAL: Remove the word "significantly" in "significantly reducing the required training time". The preface "Although the application costs several thousands of dollars a month to keep up and maintain" is unnecessary, unless you find a reliable source for this.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	A couple minor disagreements on certain things here and there from a few editors (usually about grammar and word choice), but appears stable for the most part.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged correctly. I noticed that the original link to the logo that was uploaded to Commons [1] has been nominated for deletion since April. Is this a problem? If not, ignore this.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images included are relevant and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold. The article in its current state is close to ready for good article status, but some changes need to be made regarding the citations and neutrality.

Thanks for the quick review. I've edited the article to address all of your comments. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 }}
 |}
+Thanks for the quick review. I've edited the article to address all of your comments. &mdash;[[User:HackerKnownAs|HackerKnownAs]] ([[User talk:HackerKnownAs|talk]]) 18:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)