GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 23:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Was checking out your profile (after seeing your FA nom of Huey Long, ofc) and noticed you had nominated this for GA. I'll have a full review in the next few days. Initial impressions are good (except for the merge requests, though that looks like it'll be resolved soon and isn't an issue with the current article really). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When do you expect to initiate the review proper? Thank you for volunteering. QRep2020 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List (initial impressions)

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

Note: this is not the full review, this is a summary after reading the article fully for the first time.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Some minor grammar issues, will address later in the full review. Structure is OK. Generally an "in popular culture" section would be inappropriate, but in this case it's reasonable, so, yay!
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    All of this looks good from my first impressions.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Not seeing issues here.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Looks neutral enough, which is impressive given his numerous controversies.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    The merges into the page makes it appear unstable, I don't feel right passing this while those are unresolved. Also, the talkpage looks pretty contentious. Not instantly failing, but this is a concern.
Yeah, the talk page has given me plenty of headaches... ~ HAL333 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like these were taken care of. Thanks, HAL! QRep2020 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, history indicates that the Talk page will always be a contentious space. There are regular suggestions to include fanciful or even verifiably incorrect statements that need to be "nipped in the bud", not to mention the venerating remarks that appear powered by the fan fervor that pervades anything related to Musk. QRep2020 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Sisyphean task. ~ HAL333 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    File:Elon Musk Royal Society (crop1).jpg is good (free with OTRS); File:Elon Musk 2015.jpg is good (from Flickr, doesn't appear to be license laundering); File:PBHS-facade.jpg looks fine; File:SpaceX CEO Elon Musk visits N&NC and AFSPC (190416-F-ZZ999-006) (cropped).jpg is clearly public domain and says so at the source; File:Elon Musk, Tesla Factory, Fremont (CA, USA) (8765031426).jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:Pair of 2009 SolarCity Dodge Sprinters.JPG is ok (has a weird license note but whatever); File:Elon Musk and the Neuralink Future.jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:Elon Musk Accelerates the Boring (45716125474).jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:4547274 Thai rescue workers positioning a pipe for the pumping operation in the Tham Luang cave.jpg is good (source identifies file as work of US govt employee); File:Vice President Pence at the Kennedy Space Center (49946170631).jpg is good (posted by US govt to Flickr); and File:CRS-9 (28358955546).jpg is fine though its use is iffy.
    All the files have appropriate licenses, though I strongly question the use of File:CRS-9 (28358955546).jpg as a stand-in for Musk's profile picture for a Tweet. A cropped version, either of this or of his face, would be preferable (I mean, his avatar when tweeting would be ideal, but that might not be properly licensed, and wouldn't be appropriate NFCC).
Done. ~ HAL333 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Overall this article is in decent shape and has a lot going for it. I'll give the full review over the coming few days though you may want to fix up some minor things and try to resolve the merges and disputes you have with editors on the talkpage - the article should be relatively stable to pass as a GA. I could wait for you to resolve those issues, if necessary, to continue reviewing. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elliot321, I was able to wrap up the merge discussions. ~ HAL333 17:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333 thanks, I'll continue with the full review (your ping failed as my username changed and I forgot to check back here until now - sorry!) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! =) ~ HAL333 18:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By section

Early life

Childhood and family
 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Education

I'll get to the next section tomorrow. So far no major issues. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Business career

(evidently, I'm bad at timeliness, sorry) Elli (talk | contribs) 02:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sometimes I'll forget to give follow-up comments at featured lists for months... ~ HAL333 02:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zip2
 Done Clarified. Musk was a founder but never CEO. QRep2020 (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
X.com and PayPal
Done. ~ HAL333 02:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like that interrupts the flow. ~ HAL333 02:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SpaceX

First paragraph

Done. ~ HAL333 02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. ~ HAL333 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 21:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph

Done. ~ HAL333 02:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 02:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph

Reuters source added. ~ HAL333 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tried but it seemed awkward. Made note instead. ~ HAL333 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tesla

First paragraph

Done. ~ HAL333 21:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 21:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Updated and added citation. QRep2020 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph

@Elliot321: Someone replaced it with Car and Driver, though I am not too certain if it is reliable or not. Wretchskull (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SEC lawsuit
Totally agree. ~ HAL333 02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SolarCity
Done. ~ HAL333 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Panasonic pulled its workers. 21:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes. COVID-19 has delayed a lot of the suits that I've been paying attention to over the last few years. ~ HAL333 02:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neuralink
Fixed. What do you think now? Wretchskull (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: no longer looks like a copyvio but the phrasing feels a bit clunky. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: Reworded it and broke it down from 2 to 3 sentences. What do you think now? Rewording something about a narrow subject is rather difficult so tell me if you are still unsatisfied. Wretchskull (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: looks ok. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Boring Company
Done. Added new citation. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. ~ HAL333 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the usual "jocularity" that pervades much of what Musk is involved with, the product is actually named Not-A-Flamethrower: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/10/17445838/boring-company-flamethrower-elon-musk-tweets-party QRep2020 (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@QRep2020: that doesn't mean it isn't a flamethrower, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. Will remove quotation marks. QRep2020 (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: (ping) I've done more of the review. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've covered this round now? QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@QRep2020: yeah, I'll continue with the next sections soon (feel free to ping me btw, easier than remembering to check back here and my watchlist is kinda messy). Elli (talk | contribs) 12:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other efforts

Hyperloop
Done. ~ HAL333 21:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct; done. Wretchskull (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: I replaced it with a secondary journal. I have one problem though: page one in the source, chapter "II. Hyperloop", only partially supports the article text. The rest of the source stating that it was included in Musk's blog is only shown in the corresponding reference that the source text supports the statement with (reference [4] in the source). Should page 1 and the references-page be included in the article ref or should a chapter syntax be used in the ref? I've tried the latter but it doesn't work because of an error I can't seem to fix. Wretchskull (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: this looks fine, though it only supports it being published to the Tesla blog - not SpaceX. I'd just remove "and SpaceX" and be done with it. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: I'd love to do that, but the problem is that I see SpaceX get mentioned many times in many reliable sources. However, these never tell anything in-depth about the competition and mostly mention winners. I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Wretchskull (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OpenAI
Tham Luang cave rescue and defamation case
The whole fiasco deserves its own subarticle, but a consensus decided to merge. Oh well. ~ HAL333 21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, it should have its own article! Elli (talk | contribs) 02:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2018 Joe Rogan podcast appearance
Removed. He is already quoted defending himself later. ~ HAL333 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Music ventures
Done. ~ HAL333 21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. QRep2020 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Donations and non-profits
Done. ~ HAL333 21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added reference. QRep2020 (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: here's some more to work on. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli:, I think we are up to date now. QRep2020 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@QRep2020: gotcha, I'll continue today/tomorrow (looking good so far!) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: a kindly reminder. QRep2020 (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@QRep2020: thanks. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth

Removed instead. It didn't really add much. ~ HAL333 02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the rest. ~ HAL333 02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for how long it's been taking me with this review (I'm in the middle of finals, but that's no excuse for how slow I've been) Elli (talk | contribs) 13:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm in a busy stretch irl as well and have taken my time on this nominatin as well (evidenced by Wretchskull and QRep2020's much appreciated stepping in). On a side note, I wonder if we're a in the running for the longest open GA review... ~ HAL333 02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: perhaps! Not sure how that would reflect on me, though... Elli (talk | contribs) 03:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Views

This section has been the most controversial by far, hence the larger number of references, given that, can most of them remain? ~ HAL333 14:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
Removed. ~ HAL333 14:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed this one and the previous one about Trump relation. QRep2020 (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been pretty controversial over on the talk page and multiple references were added to show that it was due. In that case, can they remain? ~ HAL333 14:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: I think it might make sense to do bundling here, if it's absolutely necessary to have this many references. However, I do think that GA noms are a good time to trim reference-cruft that comes up in situations like this. Do what you like, but the current situation feels excessive. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 14:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is against the practice because short-selling, say Tesla, amounts to an effort to profit from his companies' loss of market value as exemplified by their stock prices. Towards this end, short-sellers often organize and publish "oppo research" and "dirt" about the companies that they believe to be currently overvalued or straight up fraudulent; there is a large short-seller contingency in TSLAQ for instance that is constantly publicizing their findings and pet theories. Naturally, he does not like any of this.
With that said, I'm not sure how to get across all of that tersely and with sources. QRep2020 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do feel like it's important context, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I tried my best! QRep2020 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
COVID-19
Addressed the three of these. QRep2020 (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tweet template usually includes a link to the actual Tweet. As long as it is sourced by secondsry RS in body, it's fine imo. ~ HAL333 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial intelligence and public transit
I think this is because Musk has projects/companies based on "solving problems" he sees in AI and mass transit and so they speak to important acts of his and so are serve more than incidental views of his. QRep2020 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed these latter two. QRep2020 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333 and QRep2020: here's some more, when you're ready. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

Overall, not many issues here though some minor areas for improvement.

Done. ~ HAL333 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~ HAL333 18:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have a knack for asking the controversy-laden questions! ;) I'll see what I can find in some source material. QRep2020 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found anything that I believe will work to explain his reasoning here and I do not want to hold up the GAN further. Maybe we can table this point for now? QRep2020 (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

Actually a decent IPC section! Though Elon Musk in popular culture could use some help, that's out of scope here.

 Done ~ HAL333 18:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

Again, List of awards and honors received by Elon Musk could use some improvement though that's not in scope to this review. This section seems to do well at only mentioning the most relevant awards, so I don't see any issues either.

Notes and references

No issues here, well within the bounds of acceptable citevar. A few CS1 errors, might wanna fix those.

External links

Yeah, also fine.

@HAL333 and QRep2020: I've gone through the entire article now. It seems like most of my suggestions have been addressed, so in a few days I'll read through it again, see if there are any things that are still issues, and if so see about dealing with them. Sorry about how long this process has taken, but it's quite close to becoming a GA, at least. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elli, No worries - my lack of haste in responding to your comments is a large cause of that. But I believe I have finally addressed them all. ~ HAL333 16:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List (after review and improvements)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    As mentioned below, uses leadcite - the lead accurately summarizes the important parts of the body. All other criteria are fine too.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    After extensive review, the sourcing situation has improved to be sufficient for a GA (assuming good faith for the offline sources cited). Leadcite is applied appropriately. As for copyvio - earwig's findings look initially disturbing, but only because there are a significant number of websites that have mirrored this article. When looking at reliable sources, the only things that look suspicious are quotes - which, well, copying those is kinda the point.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Sections that could be overly detailed are instead split into subarticles as summary style dictates.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Somewhat impressive, given the article, but it certainly seems neutral.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Seems to have stabilized.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Nice job on getting this to GA - thanks for hanging in with me for the long time it took to review this (hopefully future reviews will not be so lengthy).

@HAL333 and QRep2020: passing the article. Nice job! Elli (talk | contribs) 17:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More