Talk:Alan MacMasters hoax

GA Review

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)

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

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

Good article criteria

Well written

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".

Verifiable with no original research

• 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.

Broad in its coverage

• 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?

Illustrated, if possible

• 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.

General

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Did you know nomination

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.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 02:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a British student once created a Wikipedia article falsely claiming his friend had invented the toaster?

• Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/the-reporters-63622746

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by B33net (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

🐝 B33net 🐝 22:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC).

• I'll review this. It's hilarious that my local museum (Hagley) once wrote about this joke as fact. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - pending
Overall: @B33net: QPQ pending. I'm a little unsure of Wikipediocracy as a source, but since the GA reviewer allowed it I guess it might be okay. While the current hook is fine, I think better hooks could be written about the fake inventor of the toaster, no? E.g. ALT1 ... that Alan MacMasters was not the inventor of the toaster? / ALT2 ... that the fictitious subject of a hoax Wikipedia article was a nominee to be on an English £50 note? / ALT3 ... that Scottish Government-funded organizations cited a hoax Wikipedia article as evidence of how an independent Scotland could succeed? / ALT4 ... that newspapers, encyclopedias, government agencies and a U.S. museum perpetuated the fictitious subject of a hoax Wikipedia article as the inventor of the toaster? Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• I think we should change it to that the fictitious subject of a hoax Wikipedia article was a nominee to be on an English £50 note?. It’s more interesting than the current hook. I will also get a QPQ done soon. 🐝 B33net 🐝 1:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• I did a QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/Wampanoag-class frigate 🐝 B33net 🐝 10:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: please follow this up, thanks. Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

With the QPQ done. It should be good to go. However, as I proposed the one hook (ALT2), I believe that someone else is needed to review that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

ALT2 checks out. Not a DYK issue, but the BBC source mentions that Scott Smith cooked a dish for him on Great British Menu and I think this should be mentioned.--Launchballer 12:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing needs to be improved. GA status of article and notability are being questioned, so article is not stable enough yet for DYK. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that the article has improved significantly. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

While this is open for discussion again anyway, I think a funnier hook could be chosen, especially if this is to be an April Fool's Day hook. The fact about Scott Smith seems like it would be a more entertaining hook. Something like ...that the hoaxed inventor of the toaster had a dish cooked in his honor by a chef on the cooking show Great British Menu? silviaASH (inquire within) 06:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Legitimacy of Interview

How do we know that the interview with Alex from Wikipediocracy is real and not also completely made up? The interviewer does not specify how they established contact with Alex 87.183.169.234 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)