Answer these three questions about a random Wikipedia article and win a car

[Kraken]

Hit Special:Random (T-H-L).

Answer the following three questions.....

1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)

2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)

3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)

I thought about setting out some basic assumptions, but it might actually be more fun to just let people interpret the questions as they see fit.

Obviously to win the car, you will have to be the first to answer one million times, and the offer ends at midnight.

[Kraken]

External storage (T-H-L)

1. Yes
2. No
3. No

Such a poor article, with sizeable portions entirely unreferenced. Poor style, formatting, clearly cobbled together piecemeal. Has seen the occasional attention of people bringing quality sources, but even these have been used in a very odd way, with very odd priorities. Makes me wonder if something else is going on here, some kind of seeding exploit.

I have no doubts that an introductory computing textbook would would a better job of summarizing this topic. And if you don't already have one, what on Earth were you even looking this topic up for? Other than to win a car.

[rnu]

HLA-B54 (T-H-L)
1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
No. (Unless you know a little bit about Wikipedia(ns) in which case it is very obvious.)

2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
For what little information it contains, I guess?

3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
Nothing remotely resembling Wikipedia would have an article on this. No-one will look this up in a general encyclopedia (or on Wikipedia). This is ultra-specialized information. The very few people who are looking for this information will look for it in scientific publications.

[Kraken]

Max Wirth (cyclist) (T-H-L)

1. No
2. Yes
3. No

I'm oddly happy to trust this Olympic cyclist microstub is accurate. I just don't sse the point. It tells me he competed in one event at one Olympic games, but it doesn't even tell me where he finished. So if there is such a thing as an encyclopedia of Olympic cycling or Swiss Olympic athletes, I'm pretty sure it would do better than what Wikipedia is offering me currently. And if they don't exist....well. Why is it even on Wikipedia? If this was my Grandad, I'm a very disappointed Swisser. I don't know why else I would be looking him up. Other than to win a car.

[rnu]

Max Wirth (cyclist) (T-H-L)

1. No
2. Yes
3. No

I'm oddly happy to trust this Olympic cyclist microstub is accurate. I just don't sse the point. It tells me he competed in one event at one Olympic games, but it doesn't even tell me where he finished. So if there is such a thing as an encyclopedia of Olympic cycling or Swiss Olympic athletes, I'm pretty sure it would do better than what Wikipedia is offering me currently. And if they don't exist....well. Why is it even on Wikipedia? If this was my Grandad, I'm a very disappointed Swisser. I don't know why else I would be looking him up. Other than to win a car.

3. Yes
And just to show how ridiculously easy it is to do better than Wikipedia:
https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/17194
https://web.archive.org/web/20200418051 ... rth-1.html
Both are referenced in the article, both are better than the article.

[rnu]

Tokarev, Astrakhan Oblast (T-H-L)
1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
No.
2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
No.
3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
Does a map count as a "Wikipedia alternative"? Does a census?

[Kraken]

Ibrahim of Kazan (T-H-L)

1. Yes
2. No
3. No

My knowledge of 15th Century Eurasian monarchs is nil, so a single page of a book seemingly supporting only a date of death and spouse, doesn't fill one with confidence this isn't a hoax. But if not, given the subject, it's surely highly likely a more trustworthy version exists out there somewhere.

[Jester]

Tokarev, Astrakhan Oblast (T-H-L)
1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
No.

WP:GEOLAND (T-H-L) is a massive blight on the 'pedia.

[Kraken]

The Drowner (T-H-L)

1. Yes
2. No
3. No

I was initially quite impressed by this small article about a novel. It conveys a lot of information in a nicely structured way. It makes sense. A rounded treatment. The power of appearances.

Then you see the flaws. It is just too small. Arguably the bare minimum needed for an article on a book. Right down to having two review sources, but nothing else. So a long list of awards is unsourced.

In an article as small as this, it's depressing to still see typos and other odd formatting and tense issues. So on both superficial and substantial grounds, the alternatives are surely better.

[Kraken]

Euthima wendtae (T-H-L)

1. No
2. No
3. No or N.A.

A one line article on a species of beetle. Sourced to an encyclopedia entry which has even less information than this article. One suspects it is the academic sources that source lists that support this one line.

Either a better source exists, or trustworthy sources do not cover this beetle beyond an entry in a catalogue.

[Kraken]

Isaac of Ourville (T-H-L)

A 13th Century French rabbi

1. No
2. Yes
3. No

As difficult as it is to even get your head around why Wikipedia has a page that rambles almost indiscriminately about this apparently quite obscure historical figure whose mere existence and other defining traits suffer from the mists of time, it's quite clear from the sources that some people in academia care about it. Although it was quite the surprise to see three of the five given sources are from the 19th Century. Wow. Enough interest to justify an entry in a specialist encyclopedia, surely. Maybe. But clearly, this Wikipedia entry is not that yet. Not even close.

[Elinruby]

Ibrahim of Kazan (T-H-L)

1. Yes
2. No
3. No

My knowledge of 15th Century Eurasian monarchs is nil, so a single page of a book seemingly supporting only a date of death and spouse, doesn't fill one with confidence this isn't a hoax. But if not, given the subject, it's surely highly likely a more trustworthy version exists out there somewhere.

More likely several which contradict one another

[Elinruby]

Bloo (EP) (T-H-L)

1, no. I have no idea why this is considered notable fancruft
2, 3 I have no idea

[Konveyor Belt]

National Anthem of El Salvador (T-H-L)

1. Yes

2. No, a lot of the citations are Youtube videos.

3. No, I would assume there's a Spanish-language resource with more information out there.

[Jester]

Klesie Kelly (T-H-L)
1. Depends who's reading it. She's not obviously notable but it takes all of two seconds to guess who created it if you're at all familiar with enwiki users.
2. Probably trustworthy.
3. Better than a university listing.

[Kraken]

Sylvan Anderton (T-H-L)

1. No
2. No
3. No

This one line article on a former English professional footballer appears to be referenced to a self published player database. It's inconceivable that there wouldn't be a better source out there, even accepting that they never won a trophy or an international cap.

I often feel a deep sympathy for the subjects or their relatives when reading a micro-stub like this. While it reveals very little on the surface, the inclusion of an infobox and wikilinks does allow one to rather easily build up a picture of this man's career. And it is decidedly mediocre.

He spent his formative years at Reading F.C. in the third tier. This entire 8 year period in that club's history is so unremarkable it is entirely ignored by the Wikipedia article on the club. But being a winger who scoring a goal every ten games was presumably enough to explain being sold to first tier club Chelsea in 1958.

Chelsea had unexpectedly won their first Championship in 1955. But this guy seems to have been a big reason why the club failed to capitalize on that success. He seems to have played every game in three seasons, yet scored only 2 goals. The club was mired in mid table mediocrity for this entire period. As they are today, amusingly.

Tellingly, no sooner had one of his own Chelsea team mates been promoted to replace the sacked head coach, this guy was sold to the third tier club Queen's Park Rangers. Ouch. And despite the fact this period is apparently when QPR had their most celebrated coach and the club was transformed on and off the pitch, this guy played no real part in that, making only four appearances in one season.

While one is hesitant to compare eras, 28 years old does seem a little early for a goal scoring midfield player to have dropped down into non-league obscurity where even basic stats don't appear to be available. It could be injury related, and he may never have played again. But of course Wikipedia doesn't know.

He won't have set himself up for life, that's for sure. He will have needed to move into a second career, or into coaching. But there's nothing here to suggest his coaching abilities would have been in demand. Nothing here at all about the man after the age of 28.

It's awful to think this might be the story of the man, who is apparently still alive (aged 89), and Wikipedia is almost rubbing it in his face. Even worse to think Wikipedia might be missing out some much needed context, since in this period players had no power, no say over who they played for.

Even now, talented footballers can get stuck at clubs beneath their abilities, for a variety of reasons. Mostly bad reasons, but some good. Reading was his home town club after all. And in this era, for most players, it was literally just a job like any other. Even in the top tier.

And rather obviously, due to Hitler, being born in 1934 was not the greatest of starts in life for a naturally gifted athlete. But he made it, after a fashion. With a name like Sylvan (T-H-L) he may have even been the child of a refugee fleeing Nazi tyranny. Who knows.

I'm even hesitant to say scoring 20 goals in 235 appearances in the "wing half" position is even all that bad for a professional footballer of this era. Who can say on this evidence?

This is the world Wikipedia has created. Lots of information, little context. We're all a little stupider for it.

Wikipedia might even be completely wrong. But how many readers know Wikipedia is potentially that bad? I can at least check that the information is unchanged since it was first entered into Wikipedia, almost a decade ago. Most readers don't even know they can do that.

It was certainly a surprise to see it's creator, Add92 (T-C-L), is still an active editor. It was less of a surprise to see there's been little improvement in his production, given creations like George Lax (T-H-L). Still, at least there's more than one source and they're not self published.

Go on Tim. Let's see the real story of Sylvan Anderton. Fire up the newspaper database!

[Kraken]

Diocese of Gaza (T-H-L)



Yeah, I'll leave that to someone else I think.....

[rnu]

Klesie Kelly (T-H-L)
1. Depends who's reading it. She's not obviously notable but it takes all of two seconds to guess who created it if you're at all familiar with enwiki users.
2. Probably trustworthy.
3. Better than a university listing.

2. Despite on first glance likely not a single independent source.

[rnu]

Diocese of Gaza (T-H-L)



Yeah, I'll leave that to someone else I think.....

Chicken!

1. Yes.
2. Meh. A few obviously supbar sources. Mostly general academic sources. Little specific to the topic. My guess is that what is there is probably fine, but that there would be more to say.
3. I would hope that there is something better out there. At least for the early and medieval periods. Obviously as a titular see now there is not much to say about it beyond who it is assigned to.

[Jester]

Klesie Kelly (T-H-L)
1. Depends who's reading it. She's not obviously notable but it takes all of two seconds to guess who created it if you're at all familiar with enwiki users.
2. Probably trustworthy.
3. Better than a university listing.

2. Despite on first glance likely not a single independent source.

I trust nonindependent sources for the fairly unexceptiomal claims on that article.

[Bezdomni]

Leptophobia cinerea (T-H-L)

1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
Meh. (see 3)

2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
No.

• Source #3 leads to OLXTOTO Situs Slot Online Gacor and, as such, does not mention anything about the color of the beast's wings.
• Source #2 does not mention the beast by name anywhere on the cited page.
  If you dig into subpages you eventually find photos, but not the measurement ranges it allegedly sources.

3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
No. Cf. BoA, which doesn't mention nutritional value either...

[Bezdomni]

Suite PreCure (T-H-L)

1. Yes, it's a manga, it's anime, it's a Nintendo game!
2. Yes, "her theme color is pink", "her theme color is white", "her theme color is yellow" and "her theme color is blue" are all impeccably sourced to プリキュア20周年キャラクターブック. More peccable is the lack of geo-coordinates for the characters' schools. Surely that's in the source. 中学生がベストな年齢〈映画「スイートプリキュア」制作者インタビュー3 梅澤淳稔プロデューサー後編.
3. Yes, far better than Britannica, the World Book, the Funky Wagnal's SpaceBook, or even БСЭ... none of which have hot-pink collapsible series boxes.

[Elinruby]

Sankha Park (T-H-L)
1. why it has it or should it have it?
2, there is probably such a park
3, I bet the nice people at the fist source would love to tell me all about it.

[Paragon Deku]

Vibrio mytili (T-H-L)
1. Depending on how you feel about every single species getting its own article, either way. Personally? No.
2. Yes, largely for the fact that the information contained is so scant and banal.
3. No. The database to bacteria linked in the article already does what the article needs to do for anyone curious about an isolated species found in mussels with no apparent notability to society in the realms of industry, pathology, or any sense of curiosity beyond microbiologists.
List of bridges documented by the Historic American Engineering Record in Pennsylvania (T-H-L)
1. NO!!!
2. NOOOOOOO!!!
3. FOR FUCK’S SAKE THE ONLY SOURCE IS A LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ONLINE DATABASE, NO!!!

[Randy from Boise]

Okay, I'll play, although I disagree that you're still calling Wikipedia an "encyclopedia." In fact, it's an online information compendium for the profiteers to harvest and has little to do with yesterday's encyclopedia.

Jack Welpott (T-H-L)

Biography of a dead person (1923–2007)

1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)

Lead is poorly written and does not assert importance, so: immediately obvious? No.

2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)

Footnoting is also poor, so: immediately obvious? No.

3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)

It is unlikely that a "trusted Wikipedia alternative" would cover this subject, whereas this beats having to scavenge the internets, so: Yes.

[rnu]

Hugo Aine (T-H-L)
1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
Has? Yes. Should? No. A French former football/soccer pro whose career highs are 15 games in the French second league and a game for the unofficial national team of Corsica (the latter only mentioned in the infobox). There isn't even an article on the French Wikipedia. The most notable thing about him is that he had a heart attack during a game and had to retire.
2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
No.
3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
There is probably nothing beyond statistics platforms.

[rnu]

1991 Akron Zips football team (T-H-L)

1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
Has? Yes. Should? Heck no.
2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
No.
3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
The article consists almost entirely of (mostly unreferenced) statistics, so no -- any random sports statistics platform is probably at least as good.

[Randy from Boise]

1991 Akron Zips football team (T-H-L)

1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
Has? Yes. Should? Heck no.
2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
No.
3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
The article consists almost entirely of (mostly unreferenced) statistics, so no -- any random sports statistics platform is probably at least as good.

1. Yes. Stub article of a college football team season.
2. Yes. Season dates, opponents, and scores are footnoted.
3. Yes. In that it combines multiple pages of information into a single uniform and easily accessible page.

t

[rnu]

1991 Akron Zips football team (T-H-L)

1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
Has? Yes. Should? Heck no.
2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
No.
3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
The article consists almost entirely of (mostly unreferenced) statistics, so no -- any random sports statistics platform is probably at least as good.

1. Yes. Stub article of a college football team season.
2. Yes. Season dates, opponents, and scores are footnoted.
3. Yes. In that it combines multiple pages of information into a single uniform and easily accessible page.

t

Re 2: Ah! I saw that two games have references and the others don't. I didn't notice that reference 3 is for the entire table. So yes for the statistics, no for everything else.

[Kraken]

Tony Asimakopoulos (T-H-L)

1. No
2. No
3. No

Documentary filmmaker, possibly just about notable, so unsurprisingly his biography has all the usual issues associated with that.

Super irony points for someone possibly tagging it for autobiography concerns given the article claims he's most famous for directing his own autobiography.

Super cheesy headshot definitely feels promotional.

Odds on some kind of film institute cares more about accurately documenting such figures than Wikipedia. A site with far less Google juice than Wikipedia, no doubt. Hence this.

[Kraken]

Kulam (film) (T-H-L)

1. No
2. No
3. No

An Indian film.

Shares a lot of the same features as other Wikipedia film articles.

It has some references, to some websites.

I literally couldn't tell you anything more than that.

[rnu]

Tony Asimakopoulos (T-H-L)

1. No
2. No
3. No

Documentary filmmaker, possibly just about notable, so unsurprisingly his biography has all the usual issues associated with that.

Super irony points for someone possibly tagging it for autobiography concerns given the article claims he's most famous for directing his own autobiography.

Super cheesy headshot definitely feels promotional.

Odds on some kind of film institute cares more about accurately documenting such figures than Wikipedia. A site with far less Google juice than Wikipedia, no doubt. Hence this.

A number of edits on the article (and the article on his documentary) were made by Tasimak (T-C-L) as in Tony Asimakopoulos. The headshot is a promotional photo from the film company taken from flickr.

[rnu]

Saint Judicael (T-H-L)

1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
Yes. A historically attested 7th century ruler of Domnonée (T-H-L), a minor kingdom in Brittany. Later revered as a saint.
2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
It seems so. But sounds a little too certain of some things given the time frame. Not in love with some of the sources.
3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
Probably too insignificant for a general reference work. I'd hope that there is a better treatment in some historiography reference, but it would probably have to be a pretty specialized work. Not being bogged down by things like historical fact the "Hagiographical life" despite lacking some references is probably the least bad. There may be a something comparable in some religious reference work.

[rnu]

Aldrichia ehrmanii (T-H-L)

1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
Has? Yes. Should? No.
2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
For the minimal information that is there, sure.
3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
No.

[Elinruby]

This one is different: 2023 Nigeria Invitational Women's T20I Tournament (T-H-L)

1. No
2. Not sure. Somebody has clearly put a lot of work into it
3. Yes? No print publication would have this much information about the topic in a single place

[Kraken]

Paul O'Gorman (T-H-L)

1970s Australian singer songwriter.

1. No
2. Yes
3. No

Does Wikipedia give a biography just for charting? Seems a bit ridiculous if it does. Only three sources. Most if not all of the bio has been close paraphrased from just one, the the cliff notes of an Australian Broadcasting Company Radio National episode of a radio show of some kind that covered the artist. Likely covered better by a book source of some kind.

[rnu]

Nemanja Marković (T-H-L)

1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
Only if each and every Olympian ever is notable.
2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
For the minimal information there, yes.
3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
No. The article is referenced to a statistics reference and has an external link to another statistics reference. Both are more informative than the article.

[rnu]

De Gulle Minnaar (T-H-L)

1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
No.
2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
No.
3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
No. imdb is much better.

[Elinruby]

Nate Grey (T-H-L) oh God

1. X-Men redirects here
2. I am sure it is religiously patrolled. The question is by whom.
3. MEGO. Unable to evaluate

[rnu]

Johannes Buxtorf II (T-H-L)

1. Is it immediately obvious why Wikipedia has this article? (Yes/No)
Yes.
2. Is it immediately obvious you can trust this article? (Yes/No)
No.
3. Is the article better than a trusted Wikipedia alternative might offer? (Yes/No/N.A)
No. The article is a copy of the entry in the 1901-1906 The Jewish Encyclopedia (T-H-L)

[Elinruby]

One more for the joy of the page not crashing:

LDA (singer)
(T-H-L)



1. Apparently we are LinkedIn for aspiring rappers
2. Not even slightly, especially that platinum claim.
3. I would never seek information on this topic

[rnu]

One more for the joy of the page not crashing:

LDA (singer)
(T-H-L)



1. Apparently we are LinkedIn for aspiring rappers
2. Not even slightly, especially that platinum claim.
3. I would never seek information on this topic

Meh. It's Italian platinum. That's like regular tin.
Don't cancel me.

[Kraken]

Stephanie Weirich (T-H-L)

1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes

Lady Professor of Programming doing programming stuff. Go girls!

All of three paragraphs. But solid references. A lot of their content has been left unsaid. I wonder why. Can't be bothered eh Wikipedia? You sexist pig.

Only an absolute nerd will know for sure if she is deserves her place on Wikipedia from this effort. It's written in total geekspeak.

All very sad really. Especially the thought this might be the best there is out there, certainly for a whole life biography. Would she prefer to be invisible unless or until she merits a biography long enough to at least merit sections and an infobox? Or does she have to cling to this small foothold on Mount Wiki, in the sure fire knowledge her male peers probably already have bigger bios.

Come on someone. Help a girl out. Decode her for the masses. Hot or not?

[Elinruby]

Hermosa, South Dakota (T-H-L)

1. Mangoe (T-C-L) hasn't noticed it yet.

2. 3. Commenting feels mean

[Elinruby]

Rose Petal Place (T-H-L)

1. No
2. I smell corporate PR
3. Likely c/p from Kenner website, can't be bothered to check

[rnu]

Plakida (T-H-L)

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. It is a Greek village with 10 inhabitants according to the 2021 census. I doubt it is even mentioned outside of official documents.

[Elinruby]

Come on someone. Help a girl out. Decode her for the masses. Hot or not?

I am assuming that this is just a really really bad joke.

I have never ever been able to establish notability for any open-source developer. Most are not hot btw, especially not the men

Haskell (T-H-L) is important. Someone has made a valiant attempt at that page to explain it.

[Ming]

Hermosa, South Dakota (T-H-L)

1. Mangoe (T-C-L) hasn't noticed it yet.

2. 3. Commenting feels mean

Being an incorporated town, WP:GEOLAND means it's not going to be deleted.

[rnu]

Capture of Breda (1581) (T-H-L)

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. I certainly hope that there are better options.

[Elinruby]

Hermosa, South Dakota (T-H-L)

1. Mangoe (T-C-L) hasn't noticed it yet.

2. 3. Commenting feels mean

Being an incorporated town, WP:GEOLAND means it's not going to be deleted.

Oh. This is why I don't AfD. It's still a town of ~300 people where apparently nothing has ever happened