Talk:Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: CommunityNotesContributor (talk · contribs) 23:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bit out of my usual scope, but I saw this on DYK and it looks like a fun article to review. Will give comments in the next few days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor:

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the subject.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses no fair use media.

Lead

-I feel the link to missing treasure is a bit misleading, since it isn't exactly buried treasure. The treasure hunt is what it is referred to as, so that is fine to keep, but the hyperlink to missing treasure feels excessive.

-Specify if Howells suing is in the same month, because as of now it is unclear.

Background

-Nakamoto is hyperlinked twice in this segment. Remove the second one.

Early Bitcoin Mining

-Looks good

Disposal of hard drive

-Looks good

Search attempts

-Looks good

Litigation

-Looks good

Opinion

-"Analytics firm Chainalysis estimated in 2020 that 3.7 million bitcoin (out of an all-time total of 21 million bitcoin) were lost like Howell's." Is Howell's bitcoin 3.7 million of the total, or is this just citing other incidents like Howell's? This sentence is confusing and I'm not quite sure what its purpose is.

Overall

-Looks pretty solid bar a few minor points. Will begin the spotcheck once the above are addressed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all above. Added missing treasure to see also instead, you're right it's very WP:EASTEREGG in hindsight. Otherwise removed the chainalysis statement, as in the article there is no direct connection to the landfill Bitcoin. CNC (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor Spotcheck is mostly good.

-Minor nitpick, but source 12 only states that he was one of five online, not that he was among the first five bitcoin miners. Some of the other sources verify this, such as the The Times source, among others, though be wary if only he himself is saying this to say it's according to him.

-Source 10 is Business Insider, which is of dubious reliability with the exception of its culture section per Wikipedia:BUSINESSINSIDER. Double check the veracity of this source, as if it can't be attributed per the guidelines at the noticeboard, it will have to be removed.

-What are the reliability of Hammond's documentary, Benzinga, WION, and Decrypt?

Only real hiccups. Rest looks fine. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, apologies for slight delay, as for your question:

The documentary presented by Hammond is a good question. While Hammond is a notable presenter, the show is questionably notable. Having made some searching, there is enough coverage, even if most of it due to Hammond himself. The main reason for the external link is because it's referenced in the article, even if not that significantly. It's otherwise the only doc that exists.
Have removed WION per unclosed RfC and Benzinga per RSN discussion. I had otherwise always considered Decrypt reliable after seeing it's use elsewhere for Internet based coverage. More to point, the first cite isn't really needed, though is another reference with useful context; the second instance is claiming that the "Bitcoin price reached $97,000", which I don't think is an contentious claim to be making per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I searched on RSN but didn't find any discussions on the source though.

I'll wait to hear back from you before making any further changes. CNC (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor On Hammond, I'm not referring to his inclusion in the article nor the external link, I'm discussing the fact he's directly cited as a source multiple times in the article. As for Decrypt, does it have proper editorial bylines and such? If it's considered reliable elsewhere on-site and has standards I see no immediate issue with its inclusion. Rest of the changes seem good at a glance. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad, have removed that source as shouldn't be required based on other references already available. Decrypt has editorial bylines, you could say it's team looks a bit under-qualified and it's hard to take the publication too seriously/ However the article was written by Beganski who has previously written for RS (which can't be said for most of them).[1] If however you think it's simpler to just remove, that it would only be missing a bitcoin valuation. CNC (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ended up just removing decrypt and really didn't lose a lot there. CNC (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor that should be all then. Happy to pass! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and appreciate your work reviewing the article. CNC (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]