# Talk:QAnon

i had in mind in means "Questions Answers none" , but here is stated that it comes from anonimous. then were leads "q" to ?? 178.84.194.202 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

RS say it, so do we. Do you have RS for any other claims? Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

The article is quite large and goes into unnecessary detail. For example, "Republican individuals and organizations" is much too detailed and the article doesn't need to describe how several Republicans have responded: this information can be removed or spun out. The "Demographics" section should be updated with the latest figures, and older statistics removed or summarised more effectively.
There are some uncited statements in the article.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)


### QAnon
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending 
The article is quite large and goes into unnecessary detail. For example, "Republican individuals and organizations" is much too detailed and the article doesn't need to describe how several Republicans have responded: this information can be removed or spun out. The "Demographics" section should be updated with the latest figures, and older statistics removed or summarised more effectively. There are some uncited statements in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, there are quite a lot of citations to less-than-ideal sources like post-2013 newsweek and Business Insider, the Daily Beast, and some to the decidely non-RS Raw Story and International Business Times. Also Rolling Stone on politics, which it is unreliable for. The Daily Beast/Newsweek/BI can be justified sometimes but in such a politically fraught topic with so much writing about it I don't see why they can't be replaced. Raw Story and IBT should just be removed. We are citing Frontiers as well, which is... eh.... Also some of the sources in the bibliography aren't actually cited. Generally this article overrelies on news sources for the depth of scholarship on the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)