Talk:StoneToss

Neo nazi

Lol seriously i know he is antisemitic but seriously 86.114.207.170 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes – because sources predominately call him such. See #RfC: first sentence. — Czello ^(music) 20:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. We did actually two separate reviews of the reliable sources we could find on him and it was clear that the most neutral and accurate reflection of how to refer to Stonetoss was as a neo-Nazi. We measured twice on that one and then held an RFC because assigning such a label to a BLP is not something to do lightly. But, yeah, according to reliable sources, the guy's a neo-nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

While I can agree there's sufficient evidence to include the term "neo-Nazi" in this article, I do feel the opening sentence could be rephrased a bit. As far as I'm aware, StoneToss hasn't exactly gone out of his way to define his views, so while his comics can be a reflection of his beliefs, given their "satirical" nature (whether or not you find them funny), it's hard to determine the extent to which he himself believes what he publishes. I think the term could better be applied to the comics themselves, since they are the source of the relevant viewpoints.

For example the introduction could instead read something like:

"StoneToss is a pseudonymous American political cartoonist who publishes a webcomic of the same name. The webcomic is often criticized for promoting neo-Nazi ideologies because its use of racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and antisemitic views, including Holocaust denial, as part of its humor. V3513504 (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We had a RfC about this and determined that on the basis of reliable sources that he should be referred to directly as a neo-Nazi. TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the RfC on this topic. The article uses the specific phrasing "neo-Nazi political cartoonist" as a reflection of the available sources, the majority of which refer to StoneToss (the person, not the webcomic) as a "neo-Nazi cartoonist". Ethmostigmus (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Should it not be evidenced by his work? I just went through his cartoons and I do not see anything neo nazis. It looks like editors are enganged in political war and are taking over narrative here. Shame for wikipedia. 193.28.84.20 (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yawn TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

the whole neonazi labeling is basically what he makes fun of directly from his work, I believe we could state alleged "Neo Nazi" to compromise both sides as he on the news is called a neonazi despite the author having little to no neonazi affiliations BarakHussan (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

No. He's not an "alleged" neo-Nazi, he is a neo-Nazi. We don't need to "compromise" on facts. Facts are facts, we don't give equal consideration to people who deny them. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You are currently alleging him to be one. News articles alleging stonetoss to be a neo-Nazi without any definitive proof aren't trustworthy either. Definitive proof is required for such an allegation to stick and be considered fact EveryoneIsNazi (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. We say what reliable sources say. Simple as that. And no, that's not what fascism is. — Czello ^(music) 08:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll first need to find these "reliable sources" you're talking about, since it seems like none of them have definitive proof. Definitive proof is required for an allegation to turn into established fact.

Who are these "we" you're talking about right now? EveryoneIsNazi (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The reliable sources are in the article, even in the first line - they're not difficult to find.

"We" = Wikipedia. — Czello ^(music) 08:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

These "reliable sources" allege him to be a neo-Nazi without proof. Where is the proof? EveryoneIsNazi (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to ask them that, but presumably they apply that label based on the views he promotes. — Czello ^(music) 08:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. EveryoneIsNazi (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement that we WP:SATISFY you. TarnishedPath^talk 09:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

ok EveryoneIsNazi (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There's been an RFC on this. You can see the result at Special:PermaLink/1216015718#RfC:_first_sentence. As you can see there was a clear consensus to refer to StoneToss as a neo-Nazi. There is absolutely no need to compromise. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus. The articles attached only provide empirical evidence. To add, keeping "anti-fascist groups" under the initial sentence alludes to these allegations. That is fair. 49.184.177.55 (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There was a consensus at the link TarnishedPath just provided you. You might personally disagree with it, but it exists. — Czello ^(music) 08:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I fail to recognize how an underrepresented debate constitutes a consensus. Floristt (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it was "underrepresented" as I count at least 11 editors taking part. The discussion was closed with a decision to include "neo-Nazi"; if you don't like that you'll have to challenge the existing consensus in a new discussion. As advice, though, I doubt you'll be successful. — Czello ^(music) 09:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's really embarassing how eager you seem to be to throw your fascist censorship around. I can count at least five editor that are against the libel you're so strongly advocating for, and all for what? Purposedly slander a satirical comic author?

Anti-semitism is not enough to be a neonazi 2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369 (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What is being "censored", exactly? No censorship is taking place in this article. I also don't think you know what fascist means.

If you don't agree with how the phrase "neo-Nazi" is applied, you'll have to take that up with the sources. We just reflect what they say. — Czello ^(music) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's take a look at that five editors thing for a quick second.

It's worth noting that of the registered editors that are leaning against the inclusion of his seemingly well sourced and well discussed status as a neo-nazi due to various reasons, of which there are 4 unless I've missed anyone, only one has edited anywhere else aside from this page on Wikipedia.

The same goes for the IP users. Of all the IP editors (including yourself) only one of them has edited anything other than this page and even then there was only one edit elsewhere. Of course this could be due to any number of factors, but it's worth noting nonetheless.

This of course does call into question whether, specifically for the registered editors aside from the one who has edited elsewhere, as to whether they were created solely to take part in this discussion, seeing as all of them began editing this page on the same day their accounts were created. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I can understand the issue, but as you said there may be other reasons - which, in my case, amount to not remembering my password and not wanting to go through the annoying process of recovery. Which you made me do anyway and I won't be thanking you for it. But let's not derail.

I do know pretty well what fascism is, and seizing media to weaponize them against your political rivals is exactly part of what fascism does. I am by no means a fan of the conspiration theories that Stonetoss spins, but labeling him as neo-nazi simply has no base. There are zero known connections between him and the Nazi party and zero known endorsment to their ideals. This much should be enough to make any neutral mind vote against calling him a neo-nazi.

I don't know why there are a handful of experienced Wikipedia editors here that seem hell-bent to encase a libel from left-aligned media as truth. Demeaning your rival is acceptable in politics, but shouldn't Wikipedia be above this level of pettiness? Alves Stargazer (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF. This isn't some liberal agenda, and you need to stop thinking that we're doing things because Stonetoss is a "rival". We call him what the sources call him, simple as that. — Czello ^(music) 07:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I therefore edit Kamala Harris' profile to call her "incompetent DEI hire" and shield my behaviour behind "that's how some radical sources define her" and WP:AGF? Surely not.

Good faith would be writing that he's a cartoonist and, a few lines down, mention that he has been defined neo-nazi by some sources, which is how a neutral point of view is expressed. But this article opens with "he's a neo-nazi cartoonist" despite no evidence of him being one- there's just a couple of politically aligned newspapers defining him one. If he's ever caught marching in a KKK rally I'll stand with you. Alves Stargazer (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying "radical sources", but WaPo isn't radical. It's been determined to be a reliable source. If you disagree, take it up at WP:RSN.

Also when sources describe him as being a neo-Nazi, we are able to say that in Wikivoice without saying "he has been described as such". There aren't sources I can see that are disputing the label. — Czello ^(music) 20:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

No. As per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, you can not simply throw insults to authors taking their detractors as reliable source, especially since he has a strong political alignment. It would be like calling Biden an election-stealer because the whole right-wing press depicted him as one.

Wired and the Washington Post are notoriously left-leaning media and especially Wired has an incredibly radical bias. Gnet itself, while decently reliable, only publishes articles bashing right-winged groups or perceived so. There is no single element of neutrality in this article, to the point I must ask for it to be rewritten properly. 2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369 (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Trying to call Washington Post left leaning is hilarious. Please stop. TarnishedPath^talk 13:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it was analyzed as such. check the source yourself: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/fact-checker-washington-post-media-bias

The fact you don't consider it left-leaning only means that your bias is of that a radical leftist. 2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369 (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a WP:GREL source. See WP:ALLSIDES. Don't you have better things to do? TarnishedPath^talk 13:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't you? Is your curriculum really gonna be "I want to trample any shard of integrity this platform has so that I can stick it to that author I really hate?"

Allsides is also used and referenced in Harvard social sciences, hearing an handful of extremists calling it unreliable is hilarious.

But sure, let's do your game. Here's the article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post, clearly stating that in 1970 was seen as left-winger, that during the 2007 elections they mostly sided with Obama and that in most US elections they endorsed Democrats. As I said, it's left-sided. Alves Stargazer (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Trying to argue that a publication is left-leaning because they sided with a president that increased overseas conflict is beyond inane. TarnishedPath^talk 02:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this your original research on the topic or do you have a source for it? Alves Stargazer (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately the Washington Post is considered reliable per WP:WAPO. Sources are not required to be neutral themselves to be reliable. — Czello ^(music) 07:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed they are not, but when every linked sources is biased leftward it's enough to say it's not a npov, which would be mandatory in case of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Alves Stargazer (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If you think WAPO are not reliable the best place to take that discussion is WP:RS/N. TarnishedPath^talk 23:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"what the author claims is 'edgy humor'"

But later in the article somebody else (Hart) is quoted as saying that the cartoons rely on "edgy humor". So the scare quotes here are not necessary. We could just say it is edgy humor. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CAA:BCDD:9F67:12FA (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

In all the sources where the term "edgy humor" appears, it does so within quotation marks. So no couldn't just say it, because a} reliable sources don't and b) it's not correct. TarnishedPath^talk 08:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the body to more closely reflect the sentence in source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Going further: We don't have a source attributing to Stonetoss a statement such as "my cartoons rely on edgy humor", and that's the claim made in the lead (X, being Stonetoss, said Y), but the claim isn't supported. The body claim is supported: Hart says "edgy humor" is involved, as part of her independent critique. The body has it right and the lead has it wrong. Still not in sync and needs more work. —Alalch E. 09:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. "Creator says" would have to rely on the Daily Dot article (3rd ref). Not sure what the Wired article verifies. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I missed that part of the Daily Dot article. By the way, this is the edit that introduced the current language: Special:Diff/1215674093. Edit: Wired verifies "simple and colorful imagery".—Alalch E. 09:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

So right now we are effectively saying that StoneToss said that he uses "edgy humor" and that he did so using the exact words "edgy humor", but this is not true. StoneToss did not say that he uses "edgy humor", the "antifa redditor" CriticalResist8 did. The Daily Dot article summed up the following excerpts of a reddit post:

"It’s not mild conservatism, it’s exactly the kind of shit we saw in Nazi Germany building up before they started deporting everyone,” CriticalResist8 continues. “To be clear: if you consider yourself right-wing, either centre-right, or classical liberal, or libertarian or whatever, you have to distance yourself from the fascists who purposely try to make themselves look moderately right with edgy humor."

as

According to these antifa redditors, the Stonetoss comics are much more sinister than the “edgy humor” their creator says they are.

and when making his editorialization the Daily Dot writer made it look that StoneToss said something to the effect of "I use edgy humor", but that is an insertion by the journalist.

Still, StoneToss is indeed using "edgy humor", according to Hart. But he did not say something to that effect. His work is critiqued, by the antifa redditor and by Hart as relying on edgy humor to package odious tropes.—Alalch E. 10:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hart also got "edgy humor" from the same reddit post by CriticalResist8 (relevant text in her article links to it) which is why she put it in quotation marks. —Alalch E. 10:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Both the Daily Dot writer and Hart sum up the same reddit post. Hart, being a more capable critic (Ph.D., expert) than the WP:DAILYDOT writer, sums up the reddit correctly, whereas the latter overeditorializes and uses language imprecisely so as to make it seem that Stonetoss used the exact language "edgy humor". (In reality, it is of course more likely than not that Stonetoss did refer to himself sometime someplace as "edgy"; it's statistically much less likely that he used the exact words "edgy humor"). —Alalch E. 10:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I say just remove it. We shouldn't be saying a neo-Nazi holocaust denial comic is humorous without several extremely reliable sources (which we don't seem to have), and we shouldn't be quoting from a reddit user (or quoting from sources that quote a single reddit user). Elspea756 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Removed. —Alalch E. 12:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably the best. TarnishedPath^talk 00:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Let's just cut the supposed humour statement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This part is good and shouldn't be removed: Special:Diff/1224958931 ("Hart wrote that, while internet users on the left have been trying to appropriate the cartoons, adding "layers of irony", the subversion of their message is not easily understood by most.") —Alalch E. 14:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Alalch E., removing the "edgy humor" part is a good call, but I think the bit about whether attempts to "reclaim" StoneToss comics truly subvert the source material is definitely worth keeping. Ethmostigmus (talk | contribs) 04:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It's fine. Mine was just a first sketch anyway. No concerns with this refinement. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Issues with the article

There are a lot of weak sources. I've just removed what appears to be a link to a Russian blog. There isn't a community consensus on if the Daily Dot is reliable, but they are considered less reliable on politics. The Boing Boing piece (a weak source already) and LGBTQ Nation are quoting "Know Your Meme". A section discussing the political nature of a webcomic quotes the SPLC and then "Matt Binder of Mashable". An article on a contentious topic like this should use strong sources.

More concerningly, we don't disclose his alleged name for BLP reasons, but every linked article does, and they don't seem reliable for the topic. I.e., The Advocate's title is "Elon Musk’s X bans transgender Harvard lawyer for naming a neo-Nazi" but qualifies that in the body with "was allegedly unmasked to be." Are there no neutral news organisations writing on this? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: I would like to discuss each disputed source separately. What to you appears to be a Russian blog—ru:Тинькофф Журнал—can not accurately be generalized as a blog. The cited article which you removed specifically is not WP:SPS or WP:UGC. The outlet has editorial oversight according to certain rules including the rule that articles must not include false information (https://journal.tinkoff.ru/community-rules/). Please see https://journal.tinkoff.ru/about/ for how articles undergo editorial oversight. Sergey Antonov is the editor-in-chief. The author is internet journalist Daria Leizarenko who was formerly an editor at ru:TJ (see https://tjournal.ru/post/519733), and for a brief period also its editor-in-chief (link; see also this for context). TJ was an internet outlet which also had editorial control and is frequently cited on the Russian Wikipedia which has an "authoritative sources" guideline which is generally compatible with our WP:RS. So the author is an internet media professional and she published her article under editorial oversight. Therefore, that specific article is a reliable source. —Alalch E. 20:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up in a detailed response. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I immediately, prior to seeing your reply, also went to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Tinkoff Journal to get some input there because I was also interested in what other editors might say about this. I will also comment on the other sources you've mentioned in the coming days. I am on a vacation and can't edit much in the next week or so. Sincerely —Alalch E. 21:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:StoneToss/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Alalch E. (talk · contribs) 15:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

You know what, I'll risk it. This will be my next review for the October drive. Lazman321 (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

• "...to have revealed his identity, he sought help from..." to "...to have revealed his identity, StoneToss sought help from..."
• "...alleged real name in their tweets, and amended its privacy policy..." to "...alleged real name in their tweets and amended its privacy policy..."
• "...takes a non-overt, crypto-Nazi approach, to channel and normalize..." to "...takes a non-overt, crypto-Nazi approach to channel and normalize..."
• "They also include sexist tropes..." to "The webcomic also include sexist tropes..."
• "The cartoons are shared and interacted with within both right-wing and left-wing online communities causing them to gain increased visibility." to "Both right-wing and left-wing online communities share and interact with StoneToss' cartoons, causing them to gain increased visibility."
• "...commonly known as 'stonetossedit'..." to "...commonly titled 'stonetossedit'..."
• "...been reposted not as memes in the usual sense but as..." to "...been reposted, not as memes in the usual sense, but as..."
• Split the second paragraph of the Alleged revelation of identity section into two, with the second paragraph starting with "After a few days, Twitter amended its privacy policy..."

These are my suggestions regarding the prose of this article. Lazman321 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have completed tasks 1 through 7 here. Task 8 remains. TarnishedPath^talk 00:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

CY All tasks completed.—Alalch E. 16:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

In the lead, I recommend removing the quote as it is not in the body of the article. Other than that, the necessary MOS guidelines are followed. I don't mind the citations in the lead given the contentious nature of the subject. Lazman321 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, hold on. MOS:LAYOUT does suggest that single sentence paragraphs should be kept to a minimum. I recommend merging the last paragraph of the Alleged revelation of identity section into the prior paragraph. Lazman321 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

CY Both things done.—Alalch E. 16:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

The easiest criterion to meet. There is indeed a list of references that follows the relevant guidelines at MOS:REFERENCES. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

2b - Reliable sources

I am concerned about using The Daily Dot, Boing Boing, and Mashable in this article given how they are only considered marginally reliable on WP:RSP and how controversial the topic is. I'm fine with using The Daily Dot for verifying when the webcomic started, but otherwise, I recommend finding more high-quality sources or otherwise removing the information, particularly contentious information, supported by these sources. Lazman321 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Having just finished the source check, a lot of the information supported by these sources are in the high-quality sources already cited. As such, I'm more convinced than before that should, for the most part, be replaced. The Daily Dot, however, might be worth keeping given that it does have new information that isn't really controversial such as the community bans on Reddit and Discord. Lazman321 (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lazman321, I've removed Boing Boing and Mashable. Please let me know if my edits are satisfactory. TarnishedPath^talk 14:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess so. I noticed Boing Boing is still cited, but I didn't realize beforehand that the author was a subject-matter expert. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

2c - No original research

 Reviewing... - Source check here. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, finished. I did notice a few things that need addressed but nothing too crazy. Lazman321 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: There are some concerns raised in my source check that still remain. Could you please address them? Lazman321 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

 Working on it.—Alalch E. 21:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lazman321: CY Done. For individual edits you may view the rationales at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Alalch+E.&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=2024-10-16&end=2024-10-17&limit=50—Alalch E. 00:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

2d - No copyright violations

My concerns regarding the excessive quotations have been resolved, and the Copvio Detector gave a mere score of 2.9%. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

All the main aspects of this topic, such as the content and ideology of the comics, their role in their cultural landscape, and the doxxing of the cartoonist and subsequent reactions, are addressed in this article. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

3b - Focused

The article does not go into excessive detail about the subject nor does it go off-topic. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

4 - Neutral

As is, this article already represents the general consensus of reliable sources, even if that consensus brings with it negative connotations. StoneToss, as already discussed in the talk page, is undoubtedly a neo-Nazi cartoonist, and the article even explains how his comics demonstrate this ideology. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

5 - Stable

Given that much of what is contentious in this article has been solidified by consensus on the talk page, any reasonable content dispute that this article has had has been resolved. Current attempts at challenging this consensus have been quickly quashed, and no discussion on the talk page has been active since August. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

The one image included in this article is the logo, which has a valid public domain tag. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media

The logo is certainly relevant to the article. Perhaps you could include a comic to illustrate StoneToss's Neo-Nazi ideology, but I won't require it. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

We previously had a discussion about including one of the the comics from Red Pannels (see Talk:StoneToss/Archive 1#Red Panels) and it was decided that we shouldn't, partly because the licence for the file was questionable. The file has since been deleted. When it comes to StoneToss comics at the bottom of their webpage is a copyright notice "© 2017– 2023 stonetoss.com" so I think that would be a definite no to using their comics. TarnishedPath^talk 09:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

7 - Verdict

@TarnishedPath: You know, there's something bugging me about this article that can't really be addressed under one criterion, as it honestly encompasses multiple. It's not enough to quick-fail this article, but it is enough for me to put the review on hold before I can continue further into my review. My issue is that the career section, which is the main section of the article, is messy and disorganized.

• The current header is a misnomer; it details much more than StoneToss's career, delving into the content of and reaction toward his comics. "Overview" would probably be a better header.
• Paragraph one starts with an awkwardly written introduction to StoneToss, before suddenly transitioning into a boring "A said X, B said Y" format regarding StoneToss's objectionable content.
• Paragraph two consists of three seemingly unrelated sentences.
• Paragraph three is dedicated to summarizing a single source, save for a sentence at the end mentioning a tangentially related statement from another source. This is especially strange since both sources, useful as they are, spend at most a paragraph discussing StoneToss.
• Paragraph four is a single-sentence paragraph about random trivia.

This disorganization makes it difficult for the section to readily convey encyclopedic information to a general audience. Not to mention, the number of quotes in this section is both excessive to the point of copyright violation and potentially misleading in that implies that the objectionable nature of StoneToss's comics is the opinion of some outlets rather than the general consensus of pretty much all available sources. I suggest that to remedy this, the section is reorganized to consolidate relevant ideas into substantive paragraphs that don't rely on quotes beyond for illustration. The first one or two paragraphs could introduce StoneToss broadly before delving into more specific characteristics of his comics, with the next one or two dealing with reactions toward the comic such as its popularity on Twitter and the right-wing and the re-purposing of the comics for memes.

I'll be putting this review  On hold for ten days and will continue the review after this is addressed. Lazman321 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Lazman321, and thanks for taking this on and your reviewing work so far. I am back from a ten-day wikibreak. @TarnishedPath: Thanks for helping here. In the following days I will make the changes to address the above points. —Alalch E. 18:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lazman321 I have addressed the points. Please take a look at the article now and you may view the rationales for individual edits at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Alalch+E.&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=2024-10-11&end=2024-10-11&limit=50 —Alalch E. 12:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, got to say, I'm impressed. Great job! I was a little worried my request would be potentially misinterpreted or disregarded, but looks like you addressed it well. My review will resume soon. Lazman321 (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: Sorry for the delays. I have finished the review and will be placing it  On hold once more for seven days. Lazman321 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lazman321: No problem and thank you for the high-quality review. The outstanding items have been addressed. —Alalch E. 16:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: You're welcome, and thank you for addressing my concerns and making the article as good as it is. Given the topic at hand, you have my respect.  Passed Lazman321 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.