MyWiki:Peer review/Anna's Archive/archive1

Anna's Archive

Listed for peer review because I'm considering attempting to bring it to FAC (first time!). I'm fairly confident in the sourcing and comprehensiveness but feedback on organization, prose etc. would be especially appreciated.

Thanks, BruschettaFan (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith

The hot topic these days is sourcing so (despite the request to concentrate on the prose), I'll mostly stick to sourcing. Since this will be your first FAC, starting here at PR was a good move, and I recommend that after this you move onto WP:GAN to get another round of review.

• TorrentFreak is a blog, and thus unlikely to be accepted as a WP:RS. You've used them for almost half of your citations. I'm afraid that's going to exceptionally hard to sell at WP:FAC.
• It's not clear to me where TNW falls. I see [Next Web for ProProfs] which is mostly positive, but I suspect you will still get some pushback at FAC about the quality of that source.
• London Review of Books appears to be a WP:RS in general, but you are using something from a blog they run, so that's probably not a RS.
• Per WP:VICE, There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. Not encouraging.
• I don't have a good feel for walledculture.org, but my first impression is that it's more of a blog than a RS.

Well, those are the sourcing problems that stand out to me on a quick look. Overall, the elphant in the room is TorrentFreak. I just don't see any way that's going to be accepted as a WP:RS at FAC, and given that so much of your article is sourced to them, unfortunately I think you've got your work cut out for you to find better sourcing. RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The Walled Culture source was also republished on Techdirt (a blog, but apparently a fairly well-respected one for tech news) and the author seems independently credible as a tech writer. If citing TorrentFreak is an issue I don't think there's really any acceptable replacement because there's no other source with an equivalent breadth of coverage. Most of the information they have isn't available anywhere else. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Per perennial sources "most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing". In general this is a fairly niche topic without much coverage so TorrentFreak can't be removed without excising most of the article. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Reading the various RSN discussions, I come away with the impression that it's a bit of a grey area. I do note that this thread says "There shouldn't be a problem with using articles from TorrentFreak on a limited basis and with limited weight". You are using them as the (by far) most used source in your article. I really think you're going to have a lot of trouble with this at FAC. RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah in that case FA might be infeasible, at least until better sources are available. Thank you for your help! BruschettaFan (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Query from Z1720

@BruschettaFan: It has been over a month since the last comment: are you still looking for comments, or can this be closed and nominated to WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Close it without nominating please. BruschettaFan (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)