This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
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
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
A fact from Jason Moore (Wikipedia editor) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 November 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Hi, I'm planning to review this article. This is my first GA review, so please notify me if you have any concerns. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 23:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a prolific volunteer, he personally documented the pandemic's burgeoning reach across multiple U.S. states, business sectors, and communities. How about something like He documented its...? You've already established that he is a prolific editor, and I don't see what "personally" adds in this context.
Edited
He has described being motivated by said he is motivated by
Source go out of date over time, so this language hedges rather than assuming he still is motivated by these things czar01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
on the developing event in real-time Maybe drop developing or on the event as it developed?
I spotchecked Refs 1, 3 and 4. I noticed that Ref 4 says he currently works at Oregon Symphony while Personal life mentions he previously worked there.
Could you elaborate on unfamiliar term digital strategist in personal life, or adapt the phrasing from the sources?
Both sources are similarly vague on the contents of the job and we don't have an article on digital consulting; it's a fairly common job title so I don't think it will cause issues czar01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me. Ping me when you've addressed all of these.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Sorry, but to my understanding, linking from the Main Page to userspace is not allowed. WP:WAWI, part of the MoS, says that links to Wikipedia should be treated as external links, so linking to a user page in DYK would be the same as linking to an external site. This makes sense — userspace is not part of the encyclopedia proper, and to maintain neutrality in the encyclopedia proper, we should not be giving any advantage to ourselves over other online spaces. {{u|Sdkb}}talk05:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: @Czar, nice work on this short yet good-quality article! GAs covering Internet culture are gemstones; we could always use more of them. I have a preference for ALT1, although I'd switch up the sentence structure to "... that Jason Moore is another believer?" which IMO is even hookier. It's up to y'all whether the username will be better off capitalised or not. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..."04:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the norms have changed recently, the point of DYK has always been to take some artistic license to make some aspect of the article interesting (hook-y) to pique a general reader's interest. The lower case isn't disingenuous in this sense. If we can't link the userpage for style reasons, this would be my preference to an otherwise drier hook. czar01:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I have a hard time contemplating that an article about a living person that doesn't have his birth year down, let alone parents, education, etc., could possibly be a "good article". This article is very uneven and spotty in its coverage. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? No reliable source for birth year or parentage, etc. for someone who is so involved with WP that recursiveness calls for providing a page on that type of notability alone? Why doesn't he just give an interview like countless other celebrities have done, thereby providing "reliable" info cited on their bio pages as per WP:ABOUTSELF. Martindo (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of notable people have no reliably sourced information on vital dates and parentage. This is nothing new—it goes back to antiquity and our articles reflect the sources. If you have an issue with the GA criteria, take it up on that page. czar00:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLPPRIVACY: "many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private". I have long observed an insistence by many volunteers to add poorly sourced, speculative or inference-based dates of birth for "completeness". Many of the DOBs I take the time to fact check are wrong, and moreover, have a high danger of citogenesis. There is no requirement for a Wikipedia volunteer to make their DOB, parentage etc. public, and no requirement on any article to include information that is not verifiable and due weight. — Bilorv (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, but this guy is being celebrated as a major contributor to WP, so why can't he even clarify birth year?
A bigger issue is the recursive nature of notability based on wikipedia work. What's next? A page with top ten contributors like lifetime Homerun stats? How about most lifetime Hits=user views of pages personally created? What about a Gold Glove award for editors who have the fewest percentage of reverts? It strikes me as bizarre, even self-congratulatory on the part of WP. Martindo (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moore is not directly notable based on Wikipedia work, but notable based on coverage in reliable sources about his Wikipedia work. This is exactly the same standard applied to any individual. You can either think that my comment is a good point, or that Moore should clarify his birth year, but I'm confused as to how you could think both. — Bilorv (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing... Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?"
@Czar, nice work on this short yet good-quality article! GAs covering Internet culture are gemstones; we could always use more of them. I have a preference for ALT1, although I'd switch up the sentence structure to "... that Jason Moore is another believer?" which IMO is even hookier. It's up to y'all whether the username will be better off capitalised or not. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?"
My personal pick would also be ALT2. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?"