This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Reliability This article is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability Wikipedia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alan MacMasters hoax/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bennett1203 (talk · contribs) 03:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 09:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I aim to complete this review within the next few days. Steelkamp (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several problems in this article stem from self references to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid says that you shouldn't have any links that wouldn't make sense on copies of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia article about toasters should be changed to Wikipedia article about toasters, because the page that is linked talks about "toasters", not the "Wikipedia article on toasters". Additionally, pretty much all links to non-mainspace pages should be removed, and if they are absolutely necessary, they should be in an external links section, stylised as an external link as per WP:WAWI. The links to non-mainspace pages that I could find are:

• not to use Wikipedia as a source. I would change this to not to use Wikipedia as a source.
• blocked. I would change this to blocked.
• Archived article and Deletion discussion on Wikipedia. These should be external links in an external links section.
• Citogenesis. I would just wholly remove this link or change it to Circular reporting.
• List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. This should also be in an external links section.

Some other things I noticed:

• The lead needs to be expanded, as the template there says.
  • It's good that the lead has been expanded, but it needs to be rewritten. The first sentence should introduce what the topic is, and then the following sentences go into more detail from there. Readers shouldn't have to reach the third sentence to work out what the article is about.
• Some links are to common terms, such as photography, Britain, newspapers, encyclopedias, government agencies. This should not be linked due to MOS:OVERLINK, as most readers would already know what photography is and its not directly pertinent to the subject.
• MacMasters is misspelled as "MacMaster" in some cases.
• Since there are many places named Stillwater, it should be changed to Stillwater, Oklahoma.
• Does Maddy Kennedy need to be mentioned by name. She is not a public figure, and so I think she does not need to be mentioned by name as per WP:BLPNAME.
• ...he was nominated to appear on a £50 note at the request of the Bank of England. This kinda implies that the Bank of England did the nominating, but the source says that someone else made the nomination after the Bank of England requested nominations. I think this sentence could be reworded to be clearer.
• Charles Strite does not need to be linked in the "See also" section as per MOS:SEEALSO because that page is already linked in the "Discovery" section.
• I would replace "photoshopped" with "manipulated".

• Wikipediocracy is not a reliable source, and that reference seems redundant anyway, so it can just be removed. Maybe the Wikipediocracy article can be included as an external link since it is discussed in this article.
• The sources identify Alex as the "mastermind" behind this hoax, not Alan. Therefore, the article should put more emphasis on Alex rather than Alan. For example, the first two paragraphs of the "Origin" section centre on Alan, while I think they should be recentered on Alex. Same goes for the lead.

• Sources go into more detail on how Adam discovered the hoax. Sources say that he noticed the image was manipulated and not an old image.
• Is there anything that can be said linking this hoax to the broader reliability of Wikipedia?

• The licensing for File:Image of the hoax article Alan MacMasters.jpg needs to be changed to Commons:Template:Wikipedia-screenshot, so that the UI and logo are licenced correctly.
• Why does File:Photoshopped image that was once on the Alan MacMasters Wikipedia page.jpeg need to be a non-free use image? Presumably, it was originally uploaded under a free use licence and the original image can just be undeleted, unless there is something I'm missing?
  • Those two licences can't be used together. Either the image is free use, and it can be uploaded to commons under the licence it was originally uploaded as, or it is not free use, and Template:Wikipedia-screenshot should be removed.
• This is not required under the GA criteria, but I recommend adding alt text to both images.

That's all my review, except for the source review, which I will do after all the above is addressed. Steelkamp (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I made the edit(s) with your suggestions, and I’m ready for it to be sent off to be declared whether or not it is GA acceptable! If so, I would like to thank you, as this is my first GA acceptable article! Bennett1203 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more comments and struck through the comments I consider addressed. Steelkamp (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something about the second bulleted one under the Verifiable with no original research section: both of them are equally as important, and to remaster the article to circulate around Alex would not follow the citations. I followed the citations as strictly as possible. Bennett1203 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, what do you mean by this: "Is there anything that can be said linking this hoax to the broader reliability of Wikipedia". Furthermore, I checked what you meant in the first one under Broad in its coverage, and checked the citations and tried my best to cherry pick all instances of Adam, however there was only a mean count of 4 instances of Adam. I’m very sorry if I misunderstood or didn’t do as what was told. Additionally, I am taking a 3 day holiday for my birthday, so I might not be as active. Bennett1203 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries if you might not be as active. I will have some more to say tomorrow, but for now, I will says that the lead is now too long. The whole article is already quite short so a one paragraph lead is all that is needed. The additions made to the lead don't fix the underlying issue either, which is that the first sentence doesn't introduce the topic. Steelkamp (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I’m probably going to call it here. This is all I can do in my willpower. The GA nomination may come to a rest. I am doing this as means of ensuring I get other personal and Wikipedia business done. Bennett1203 (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Although we didn't get all the way to GA status, this article has definitely improved since I started the review. If you want to improve it further, I recommend making a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, where someone can help improve the article's writing. Steelkamp (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did the lecture happen on 10 February 2012 or 6 February 2012? Is this another hoax? 120.18.53.5 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. According to the BBC and other sources, it's 6 February 2012. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota resident James Lileks states here that it is Stillwater, Minnesota. http://lileks.com/bleats/archive/24/0824/13.html 2600:1700:44F0:35EF:254E:8355:50A4:75DD (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is indeed Stillwater, Minnesota - not Oklahoma. Here is another source attesting to it being in Minnnesota: https://www.thegazette.com/history/time-machine-an-iowan-invented-the-pop-up-toaster/. Concchambers (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those who know: 💀 49.245.83.91 (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Alan really a photography and ICT student? If no, where did this come from, and what subject did Alan really study at the time? 120.18.191.25 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has attracted a substantially larger number of visitors in the last couple of days. Do we know where this traffic is coming from? Nardog (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It crops up from time to time on social media. I don't do social media now, but there are posts on Reddit in the last week. Could be that? Knitsey (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of those spam AI-with-gameplay-in-background posts (you know, those brainrot looking ones) have posted on this topic recently. i know because i just unfortunately came across one, which led me here, and in the past i have seen that these videos are posted in spam amounts on many, many accounts... the one i found currently has 1.9 million views. I guess people show up because they'd like to see what is left of the article..

hmph. i usually dont watch these stupid attention grabbing videos... damn it! I'm turning into a mindless zombie! XD

Even stranger, when i opened my laptop (im not signed into google or youtube on it) and typed in 'alan mac', the result for alan macmasters was at the very top... google really is always watching LOL 121.45.113.76 (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, brainrot skibidi, yipee ki yay, algorhymical and whatever else the yoote say these days. This type of interest is usually down to social media attention. Knitsey (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's this short from YouTube, which was released the day when the article started getting an unusually high amount of visitors. Gained (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess that's it. Already over two three eight ten million views. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how do they even find these topics to talk about lol...? i wonder how much of the process is now made with AI. 121.45.113.76 (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not External links. They are WP links. Even though that are in WP namespace they should be in See also. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An {{srlink}} is used in articles about Wikipedia to link to a Wikipedia page in the form of an external link, so that the link will still work on mirrors and forks of Wikipedia. "Srlink" is short for "self-reference link".--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to List of hoaxes on Wikipedia from the See also section, since it's a redirect to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia and also occurs in the External links section. I hope that's ok. Does the WP:MOS have something to say about where such special cases belong? — Chrisahn (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]