Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 09:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will review this. While it looks to be decently written and sourced from a skim over it, I have some major issues.

My biggest is, is this really all the information available about Sewell? There is so little about him here it doesn't feel like a biography at all. I cannot believe that with someone who has as high a profile as this guy that they have found nothing on him, besides individual listings of Incidents he has been involved with little commentary. As a result, this reads in a disjointed manner where it's just a few sentences that provide little context and then nothing else. What was he doing before this? What else does he do? Is there really nothing? Most sources are used only once, which indicates to me this article may not have WP:MINED its sources effectively.

With something like the Lads Society, for instance, this article barely explains what it is, so the stuff wrt Tarrant comes off like a non sequiter. What was he trying to recruit him into? Why did he reject it (I know for a fact the coverage says this)? What did the group do? What was his response to Chch, since his attempt to recruit Tarrant was a major controversy for him?

If there really isn't anything else, it shouldn't impact the GA, but I doubt it. Either way the article should be restructured because the incredibly brief early life section is awkward in relation to the rest of the article. It also just comes off like a list of incidents, which to some degree is perhaps unavoidable given the news cycle but there has to be some way to make this flow more naturally.

My concerns are fundamental enough to the way the article is structured that I think it would be to be difficult to address, but not impossible, so I won't quickfail this.

I will do a deeper/more formal look later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, this article has an excessive amount of citations on specific statements. If they're all needed, they should be bundled to be less of an eyesore. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA, I've done a bit of restructure to put the personal life sections and early life/education sections together so they don't appear so disjointed as random sentences. I've also added some other material about Sewell's personal life that I hadn't read before which I found in a source using ProQuest. I wouldn't have otherwise read the material as it was behind a paywall.

I've also added some material on the Lads Society and Tarrant. Lastly I've grouped a bunch of references together in different places.

Has what I've done make the article better?

What further suggestions do you have? TarnishedPath^talk 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already a major improvement! Great job. I will do a deeper look now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
1A: (to come)

LEAD: I am aware there was a discussion about this and it was the consensus, but as a member of WP:CRIMEBIO, this kind of thing has been discussed before and saying in the lead that someone is a "criminal" or "convicted criminal" alone is sloppy writing and frowned upon. A criminal conviction can be anything, it can be mass homicide, rape, tax fraud, or anything. Sources rarely describe someone as just "a criminal", it's typically what their conviction was, many crimes are not a claim to notability, so describing someone as just "a criminal" is not great. It is not a BLP issue since he was convicted, it's just sloppy. This isn't a point of failure for the GA nomination, I'm aware that there was a whole discussion about this, but I really don't think this is good writing. Him being charged with crimes is of course relevant information for the lead, but I think focusing more on what he did to get that conviction (attacking people and nazi protests) may be more clear than just saying "criminal"

I'm mildly surprised that this uses Infobox officeholder, given he is the "self appointed leader", but that's not exactly wrong.

Per WP:LEAD, there should not be material only in the lead. As it is now the bit: "In October 2023 Sewell was sentenced to a prison term of one month and seven days, after attacking hikers at Victoria's Cathedral Range." is only in the lead. Add that to the body? It also seems kind of random that this is the criminal charge in the lead and not the prior one.

More thoughts to come. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA, I've performed some edits to the lead and the body. The being sentenced to a prison term was already in the body, where it stated that he was sentenced to time served. I edited to make it explicit that time served was one month and seven days. I've also edited the lead to remove convicted criminal which may be the consensus of the prior RFC, however I've edited to state the criminal acts that he has been convicted of. I hope none of the other editors have an issue with that. I'll continue looking at the rest of your suggestions below later on. TarnishedPath^talk 09:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also my suggestion for the lead: Special:PermanentLink/1255072406. I rearranged the content to better describe who he is in the first sentence. The edit is just a suggestion and I don't dispute the previous version.—Alalch E. 00:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion solved the problem I had here and I support it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LAYOUT: (to come)

WORD CHOICE: describes him as a neo-Nazi but that's well attested and supported by sources. I see no issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FICTION: Not an issue here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LISTS: Not an issue here (unless you count the list of activities at the bottom, which we will get to with the layout check) PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
REF SECTION: No issues here, pass.

RELIABLE SOURCES: Most sources are good, all reliable news outlets. I have some questions as to the reliability of the two citations to the Herald Sun, given that they are a tabloid, and the RSN discussions do not give me confidence. Can you replace these citations?

This is unrelated to the GA criteria, but I would recommend standardizing the wikilinking of the publication name in the citations. It should preferably be consistent, as it is now it is linked in some of them but others it's just plaintext. Also, the first citation for the "neo-Nazi" bundle cite has Australian Broadcasting Corporation linked thrice, present identically in three separate parameters. That citation should also probably give the source as ABC News (Australia) and not the publishing company, as other sources in the same page do. It seems that every citation to that publication is formatted differently (for example, one gives it as ABC.net.au, some use the publication name, some only give the publisher, some don't give the publisher. Should be standardized. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA, I've removed Herald Sun. I'm surprised I missed it being there as I was involved in the most recent WP:RS/N discussion and I have been removing it most of the time that I come across it. I'll look at your suggestion of standardised links to publisher later. TarnishedPath^talk 09:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA, I've now standardized all of the references to refer to |work=... and provided links for everything. Let me know if I've missed anything. What next? TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, all good here on this front. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPOT CHECK/COPYVIO CHECK: (to come)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
MAJOR ASPECTS: While the sources are reliable, the sources are entirely news articles. While this would be fine if this was all that there was, there is actually a bit of academic discussion about Sewell that this article does not include, which focus on elements that the news sources don't cover or cover differently.
These sources, which I was able to access either through the WPL or elsewhere, give sigcov of Sewell:
Global Identitarianism, Routledge, 2023, pp. 206-207

Global Heating and the Australian Far Right, Routledge, 2024, pp. 74, 97, 100, 107, 215

A Fortified Far Right?: Scrutinizing the Threat, Taylor & Francis, 2024, pp. 37, 94, 97

Richards, Imogen; Rae, Maria; Vergani, Matteo; Jones, Callum (2021-04-01). "Political philosophy and Australian far-right media: A critical discourse analysis of The Unshackled and XYZ". Thesis Eleven. 163 (1): 107, 125. doi:10.1177/07255136211008605. ISSN 0725-5136. Retrieved 2024-11-03.
Less significant:
Masculinity and Violent Extremism, Palgrave Macmillan, 2022, pp. 58, 62-63

Global Perspectives on Anti-Feminism, Edinburgh University Press, 2021, pp. 128, 131
While a GA does not need to be comprehensive like a FA would have to be, I believe that missing academic discussion entirely of a far-right figure when that coverage exists means this article does not yet pass the "main aspect" GA criterion. Other sources it may be useful to replace news sources with them as they are usually considered more reliable, though that is not strictly necessary, and you don't have to incorporate every single source I listed above those are just suggestions, as again this isn't the FA criteria. But it needs some academic discussion. If you need access to any of the sections in these sources that discuss Sewell feel free to email me.

FOCUSED: No issues here, pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a read of those articles tomorrow evening, at least the ones I can access through WPL and see what they can replace and if there is any extra content that can be added to the article from them. TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA, I've added a bit of material and included usage of those sources. Do you have any other suggestions? TarnishedPath^talk 04:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I was initially questioning the usage of the disamb neo-Nazi - not disputing he is one, but it seemed unusual to use that as the disamb. However I did find some other well written pages that used it (James Mason (neo-Nazi), Bill White (neo-Nazi)), it doesn't seem very contentious to apply the label to him, and WP:DAB says nothing about it as far as I can see so I don't think it's an issue.

I haven't marked it a pass yet since I haven't finished the check but preliminary it seems fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
neo-Nazi was the disamb in the article when it was published to mainspace after an AFC review and it's been that way since as far as I can tell. I think it is probably the best disamb to distinguish him from the other Thomas Sewells. TarnishedPath^talk 09:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with it being the best I just thought I'd mark it down lest anyone take any issue with it in the future. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No issues here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images are both valid CC Attribution licenses and appropriate. The infobox one needs a caption. Should say what year it was at least. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA Done. I've add text stating that it was taken from an interview in the lead up to a match with rival Neil Erikson. TarnishedPath^talk 00:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Sorry for the wait I completely forgot I was doing this! Will start again tonight, apologies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail: