# Talk:Jason Moore (Wikipedia editor)

Since the dust has settled, perhaps the following pages can finally be deleted?

Draft:Jason Moore
Draft:Jason Moore (writer)
Draft:Jason Moore (writer) 2
These seem unnecessary, but I'll let others decide. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd leave them as not harming anyone and WP:RDRAFT says to keep at least the middle one czar 20:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jason Moore (Wikipedia editor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vortex3427 (talk · contribs) 23:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm planning to review this article. This is my first GA review, so please notify me if you have any concerns. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 23:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

As a prolific volunteer, he personally documented the pandemic's burgeoning reach across multiple U.S. states, business sectors, and communities. How about something like He documented its...? You've already established that he is a prolific editor, and I don't see what "personally" adds in this context.
Edited
 He has described being motivated by said he is motivated by
Source go out of date over time, so this language hedges rather than assuming he still is motivated by these things czar 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
on the developing event in real-time Maybe drop developing or on the event as it developed?
I think "real-time" is useful context for a general reader czar 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
resulting series of protests series of protests following the murder of George Floyd?
Maybe link outreach in the final sentence in 'Wikipedia'?
It's a dictionary word and not quite the same as the contents of outreach so I'd prefer not
What makes Portland Mercury reliable?
It's a prominent alt weekly with a dedicated staff and sizable print circulation, and it's only used for local, unexceptional claims. czar 00:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
You could wikilink Ref 15 to Wikipedia @ 20.
Done
I spotchecked Refs 1, 3 and 4. I noticed that Ref 4 says he currently works at Oregon Symphony while Personal life mentions he previously worked there.
Yes, based on later refs it's assumed that he changed jobs czar 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
All images properly tagged.
Could you elaborate on unfamiliar term digital strategist in personal life, or adapt the phrasing from the sources?
Both sources are similarly vague on the contents of the job and we don't have an article on digital consulting; it's a fairly common job title so I don't think it will cause issues czar 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
That's all from me. Ping me when you've addressed all of these.

Thanks, @Vortex3427! Commented above and appreciate the review. czar 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Now passing this. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 04:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I must say I have a hard time contemplating that an article about a living person that doesn't have his birth year down, let alone parents, education, etc., could possibly be a "good article".  This article is very uneven and spotty in its coverage. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The article covers the full breadth of what has been covered in reliable sources. That's the GA criteria. czar 04:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Seriously? No reliable source for birth year or parentage, etc. for someone who is so involved with WP that recursiveness calls for providing a page on that type of notability alone? Why doesn't he just give an interview like countless other celebrities have done, thereby providing "reliable" info cited on their bio pages as per WP:ABOUTSELF. Martindo (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Plenty of notable people have no reliably sourced information on vital dates and parentage. This is nothing new—it goes back to antiquity and our articles reflect the sources. If you have an issue with the GA criteria, take it up on that page. czar 00:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
See WP:BLPPRIVACY: "many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private". I have long observed an insistence by many volunteers to add poorly sourced, speculative or inference-based dates of birth for "completeness". Many of the DOBs I take the time to fact check are wrong, and moreover, have a high danger of citogenesis. There is no requirement for a Wikipedia volunteer to make their DOB, parentage etc. public, and no requirement on any article to include information that is not verifiable and due weight. — Bilorv (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
That's a good point, but this guy is being celebrated as a major contributor to WP, so why can't he even clarify birth year?
A bigger issue is the recursive nature of notability based on wikipedia work. What's next? A page with top ten contributors like lifetime Homerun stats? How about most lifetime Hits=user views of pages personally created? What about a Gold Glove award for editors who have the fewest percentage of reverts? It strikes me as bizarre, even self-congratulatory on the part of WP. Martindo (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Moore is not directly notable based on Wikipedia work, but notable based on coverage in reliable sources about his Wikipedia work. This is exactly the same standard applied to any individual. You can either think that my comment is a good point, or that Moore should clarify his birth year, but I'm confused as to how you could think both. — Bilorv (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)