DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:15.ai

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Good article15.ai has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2022Good article nomineeListed
January 30, 2023Articles for deletionKept
November 18, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 17, 2024Articles for deletionDeleted
December 28, 2024Articles for deletionNo consensus
February 10, 2025Peer reviewReviewed
April 2, 2025Good article nomineeNot listed
October 9, 2025Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 9, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the developer of 15.ai claims that as little as 15 seconds of a person's voice is sufficient to clone it up to human standards using artificial intelligence?
Current status: Good article

Source assessment table for GA nomination

[edit]

Per my GA nomination source checklist, I've removed several unreliable sources from the article. The updated source table can be found below, and I've only included sources that directly mention 15.ai. The source assessment in the talk page comment above this one is inaccurate because it assumes that if an otherwise reliable source cites an unreliable source, then that makes the otherwise reliable source unreliable. This assertion is false per WP:USEBYOTHERS, which states that How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. Furthermore, the above assessment fails to consider other language Wikipedias' RSNs and assumes that if a source does not exist in the English RSN, then it must be unreliable. This is false, as in the case of high-quality Russian sources like iXBT Games and StopGame (both considered reliable per Russian WP:VG/RS). In order to set the record straight, I have posted a thorough, in-depth, policy-based assessment of every source used in this article in preparation for the GA nomination. I will be updating this as I do more research, so please leave comments if you'd like, as I may have missed something or made an error. Thank you!

Source assessment table
Citation Source Reliable?
"The MIT Project That Paved Way For Modern Voice AI" Independent Nigeria Yes per WP:NG/RS
"Troy Baker-backed NFT firm admitted using voice lines from another service without permission" Mobidictum Yes; WP:USEBYOTHERS, peer-reviewed journals that use the source include [1] [2] [3] and books from reputable publishers include
"Voiceverse NFT caught plagiarising voice lines from AI service" AIAAIC Yes; AI incident repository used by researchers, journalists, and policymakers
"Grupo NFT do ator de voz de The Last of Us apanhado a roubar vozes de outro serviço" OtakuPT Yes; used 81 times in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Uses in journals/books include [7] [8]. Editorial policy is here. They claim to be the largest manga/anime news outlet in Portugal, which actually seems to check out.
"La compañía de NFTs que se alió con el actor de voz de Joel de The Last of Us la ha liado bastante parda" Sport.es Yes; WP:NEWSORG
"Make GLaDOS, SpongeBob and other friends say what you want with this AI text-to-speech tool" Byteside Partial; was only able to find one instance of WP:USEBYOTHERS at [9], probably best used with attribution and not for stating facts, or just omit entirely. This source is used exactly once as of the current revision, in the reception section, used with attribution.
"NFTs Are Bad. So Why Do People Keep Making Them?" The Herald (Arkansas State University) Yes; per WP:UNIGUIDE the source is generally reliable, but does not count toward notability
"Troy Baker’s NFT Partner Company Caught Claiming Voice Lines From Another Service As Their Own" PlayStation Universe Yes per WP:VG/RS
"Generate Your Favourite Characters’ Voice Lines using Machine Learning" Towards Data Science Yes; author has IEEE publications on NLP and machine learning. As long as we follow WP:EXPERTSPS's advice of Exercise caution when using such sources, this is a reliable source.
"Make the cast of TF2 recite old memes with this AI text-to-speech tool" PC Gamer Yes per WP:VG/RS
"Make Portal’s GLaDOS and Other Characters Say Whatever You Want With This New App" GLITCHED Partial; a discussion is ongoing
"Faça GLaDOS, Bob Esponja e outros personagens falarem textos escritos por você!" Arkade Yes; used 49 times in the Portuguese Wiikpedia. Has been on the jury for the Brazil Game Awards along with other industry outlets like IGN and Forbes Brazil. Uses in peer-reviewed journals include
"Voice Actor for Joel Receives Backlash after NFT Tweet" ClutchPoints Yes; the consensus from RSN is that ClutchPoints is not unreliable, but can have "clickbaity" titles. Clear editorial standard.
"15.ai已经重新上线，版本更新至v23" EquestriaCN No per WP:FANSITE; However, even though EquestriaCN is a My Little Pony fan site, I feel like this is an exceptional circumstance (as written in WP:GUNREL) and WP:IAR may apply for an uncontroversial description of the app. 15.ai spawned from the brony fandom and started with pony voices, so I believe having one sentence with attribution (i.e. not stating any facts from the source in Wikivoice) is reasonable. This source is used exactly once as of the current revision, in the reception section, used with attribution.
"模型参数过亿跑不动？看MIT小哥，少量数据完成高质量文本转语音！" QQ News Partial; according to the Chinese Wikipedia's RSN, (translated) Content published by accounts verified by government, corporate, and other organizations can be used as the primary source for the publisher's claims. and Content published by news media organizations' verified accounts can be used based on the media's own reliability. The article in question was published by the official verified account of XinZhiYuan, a Chinese AI startup. Probably can be used sparingly for uncontroversial statements, preferably with in-text attribution.
"『Portal』のGLaDOSや『UNDERTALE』のサンズがテキストを読み上げてくれる。文章に込められた感情まで再現することを目指すサービス「15.ai」が話題に" Den Fami Nico Gamer Yes per WP:VG/RS
"这个网站可用AI生成语音 让ACG角色“说”出你输入的文本" GamerSky Yes; listed as reliable per Chinese WP:VG/RS
"Трой Бейкер отказался от партнёрства с NFT-платформой Voiceverse и извинился за резкое высказывание в поддержку токенов" DTF Yes; Russian WP:VG/RS says DTF is generally reliable with the note Wikipedia considers only editorial content reliable; it is marked with a ✔ after the title and is placed in a separate feed. The article in question indeed has a ✔ after the title and clicking on it brings the user to the editorial feed.
"Troy Baker-støttet NFT-virksomhed indrømmer at have stjålet indhold" Gamereactor Yes per WP:VG/RS
"Troy Baker's Partner NFT Company Voiceverse Reportedly Steals Voice Lines From 15.ai" Tech Times Yes per WP:VG/RS
"15.ai" Hacker News Yes per WP:ABOUTSELF for uncontroversial self-descriptions
"Proyek NFT Troy Baker Ketahuan Mencuri Aset Suara AI Tanpa Seizin Pemiliknya" Gamebrott Yes; Popular ([15] [16] [17]) Indonesian gaming news website. They have a solid editorial staff and Google Translated versions of their articles seem to pass the smell test. Uses in peer-reviewed journals include
"Brony Musicians Seize The Means of Production: My Eyewitness Account to BABSCon 2025" Alex Irpan Yes per WP:EXPERTSPS; author of the article is a senior research scientist at Google DeepMind with over 13,400 citations on their Google Scholar profile
"Voiceverse Is The Latest NFT Company Caught Using Someone Else’s Content" Kotaku Australia Yes per WP:VG/RS, which states News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable. This January 2022 article was posted as a news post and not a blog one.
"Un algoritmo que convierte texto a voz «con emoción y sentimiento» e imita a personajes y voces conocidas" Microsiervos Yes; while Microsiervos is one of the most popular Spanish technology blogs, it is a self-published source. However, according to [21], the author of the article in question (Álvaro Ibáñez) is a director of technical publications and author of information technology books. WP:EXPERTSPS states that Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. On further research, the author of the article has a Google Scholar profile and has been cited 46 times; the author has published reliable, peer-reviewed books and articles (Web 2.0, Cómo buscar y encontrar información en Internet, Internet y el correo electrónico en español). An even further search shows that the publishers of these books are independent of the author (the publisher of the first book does not list the author as a member, La página del idioma español is a reputable journal, etc.) It's probably best to err on the side of caution and try to use as little of it as possible with in-text attribution if applicable, but as long as we follow WP:EXPERTSPS's advice of Exercise caution when using such sources, this is a reliable source.
"这个国外的语音合成网站，可以让玩家操控二次元角色说话" NetEase News Partial; Chinese WP:VG/RS places NetEase News as a situational source. Chinese Wikipedia advises: General information about NetEase may be used, but specific conclusions should be drawn from other reliable sources. Currently the article uses the citation exactly once: it supports the reception section at Ji Yunyo of NetEase News called the technology behind 15.ai "remarkably efficient" but also criticized its emotional limitations, writing that the emotional expression was relatively "neutral" and that "extreme" emotions couldn't be properly synthesized, making it less suitable for not safe for work applications. Ji also wrote that while many deepfake videos required creators to extract and edit material from hours of original content for very short results, 15.ai could achieve similar or better effects with only a few dozen minutes of training data per character. which seems appropriate and within the boundaries of the Chinese Wikipedia's advice, especially since everything is attributed in-text and verifiable by other sources. This source is used exactly once as of the current revision, in the reception section, used with attribution.
"NFT в геймдеве: проблемы регулирования, гнев игроков и поспешные решения разработчиков" Skillbox Yes; Skillbox is a very well-known Russian online education platform. Surprisingly, there have been zero previous RSN discussions on the platform on both the English and Russian Wikipedias. The author of the article in question, Pavel Khibchenko (Павел Хибченко), is a prolific journalist at Igromania (profile) and Kanobu.ru (profile), which are listed in WP:VG/RS and Russian WP:VG/RS, respectively, so in the worst case scenario, we can still invoke WP:EXPERTSPS to confirm its reliability.
"NFT-штука Троя Бейкера ворует чужие работы". В сети уничтожают известного актера озвучки" GameGuru Yes; Russian WP:VG/RS says GameGuru is reliable
"ゲームキャラ音声読み上げソフト「15.ai」公開中。『Undertale』や『Portal』のキャラに好きなセリフを言ってもらえる" AUTOMATON Yes per WP:VG/RS
"Incident 277: Voices Created Using Publicly Available App Stolen and Resold as NFT without Attribution" AI Incident Database Yes; AI incident repository used by researchers, journalists, and policymakers
"Insolite : un site permet de faire dire ce que vous souhaitez à GlaDOS (et à d'autres personnages de jeux vidéo)" Clubic Yes per WP:NEWSORG
"Shonen Jump Learns That When You Tease at an Upcoming Announcement, You Gotta Tell Us, Upfront, That It’s Not NFT Related" The Mary Sue Yes per WP:RSPSS
"语音开源项目优选：免费配音网站15.ai" Zhihu Yes per WP:EXPERTSPS; the author of the article has a Google Scholar profile with over 1,100 citations
"Voiceverse NFT Service Reportedly Uses Stolen Technology from 15ai [UPDATE"] Wccftech Partial; normally, this would follow WP:VG/RS (which puts Wccftech as a generally unreliable source), BUT this particular article was explicitly used in the court documents of Lehrman v LOVO to prove that Voiceverse stole work from 15.ai (see the bottom of page 38: 29 VoiceVerse Docs, “Vision,” docs.voiceverse.com/whitepaper/english/vision. Separately, VoiceVerse has already been found to have stolen technology from another company. See Ule Lopez, WCCF Tech, “Voiceverse NFT Service Reportedly Uses Stolen Technology from 15ai,” (Jan. 16, 2022), https://wccftech.com/voiceverse-nft-service-usesstolen-technology-from-15ai/.). Per WP:USEBYOTHERS in this special case, since this Wccftech is good enough for use in court, this article can be used sparingly for non-controversial statements of fact. Note that context matters: generally unreliable does not mean always unreliable.
"Spongebob Can Now Narrate Your Writing" AI Daily Partial; has editorial staff but a cursory search was unable to find sources that prove WP:USEBYOTHERS. Actually, the book Tech Trends in Practice published by Wiley (a reputable publishing house) uses the source without comment for facts. The book was written by Forbes contributor and futurist Bernard Marr. So, there is an argument to be made that this source is reliable.
"Put words in game characters' mouths with this fascinating text to speech tool" Rock Paper Shotgun Yes per WP:VG/RS
"15.ai, el sitio que te permite usar voces de personajes populares para que digan lo que quieras" Qore.com Yes; owned by the same parent company as LevelUp, which Spanish Wikipedia has deemed reliable. Peer-reviewed journals that use the source include

Still, probably best used sparingly and preferably with in-text attribution.

"讓你喜愛的ACG角色說出任何話！ AI生成技術幫助你實現夢想" Yahoo! Kimo Yes per WP:YAHOONEWS; the article is original reporting from Yahoo and not syndicated content, thus reliable
"Troy Bakerin tukema NFT-yhtiö kärähti – Kaupitteli ääninäyttelyä luvatta" Muropaketti Yes per WP:NEWSORG
"NFT-företaget som Troy Baker marknadsför tog ljudklipp från annan tjänst" FZ Yes per WP:NEWSORG
"Voice Cloning for the Masses" The Batch Yes per WP:EXPERTSPS; the author of the article is Andrew Ng
"This Website Will Say Whatever You Type In Spongebob’s Voice" Anime Superhero News Partial; formerly known as ToonZone. A Previous RSN discussion brought up good points that high-quality professional publications like Time, The Atlantic, The A.V. Club, and Space.com have used ToonZone / Anime Superhero News as their source ([25] [26] [27] [28]). Honestly, if it's good enough for Time, The Atlantic, The A.V. Club, and Space.com (all solidly green in WP:RSP per WP:TIMEMAGAZINE, WP:THEATLANTIC, WP:AVCLUB, and WP:SPACE.COM) I don't see why its usage with attribution for this article should also not be okay per WP:USEBYOTHERS. This source is used exactly once as of the current revision, in the reception section, used with attribution.
"Like them or not, NFTs are here to stay" The Journal (Webster University) Yes; per WP:UNIGUIDE the source is generally reliable, but does not count toward notability
"Troy Baker-backed NFT firm admits using voice lines taken from another service without permission" Eurogamer Yes per WP:VG/RS
"Создателей NFT-голосов, которых поддержал Трой Бейкер, уличили в краже голосов в тот же день" iXBT Games Yes; Russian WP:VG/RS says iXBT Games is generally reliable with the note User blogs are not considered reliable sources; they can be identified by a disclaimer under the title: "This post was published on iXBT.com blogs; its author has no affiliation with the iXBT.com editorial team." which does not apply to our article in question
"Everything You Need to Know About 15.ai: The AI Voice Generator" Play.HT Yes per WP:EXPERTSPS and WP:PRIMARY; will only used with in-text attribution
"¡La decepción, hermano! Proyecto NFT apoyado por Troy Baker usó tecnología ajena" LevelUp.com Yes per WP:NEWSORG; also considered reliable per Spanish Wikipedia
"Make Portal's GLaDOS And Other Beloved Characters Say The Weirdest Things With This App" Game Informer Yes per WP:VG/RS
[29] [30] [31] Equestria Daily Yes; see WP:EQD (an essay I wrote) for a detailed explanation
Трою Бейкеру пришлось извиняться за решение сотрудничать с NFT-компанией StopGame Yes; Russian WP:VG/RS says StopGame is generally reliable with the note User-generated content is located in the "Blogs" section; only editorial content may be used as sources. which does not apply to our article in question
15.AI: Everything You Need to Know & Best Alternatives ElevenLabs Yes per WP:PRIMARY and WP:EXPERTSPS; will only used with in-text attribution
"15.ai Creator reveals journey from MIT Project to internet phenomenon" The Guardian Yes per WP:NG/RS
"Troy Baker’s NFT Partner Company Voiceverse Caught Using Voice Lines From Another Service Without Permission" Geek Culture Yes per WP:VG/RS
"這個AI語音可以模仿《傳送門》GLaDOS講出任何對白！連《Undertale》都可以學" United Daily News Yes; one of the three major national newspapers of Taiwan and listed as reliable per Chinese WP:VG/RS
"Descubre 15.AI, un sitio web en el que podrás hacer que GlaDOS diga lo que quieras" LaPS4 Yes per WP:NEWSORG; a discussion is ongoing, so you can consider this partial until the discussion is closed
"Deepfakes Are Elevating Meme Culture, But At What Cost?" Analytics India Magazine Partial; English Wikipedia has ~179 uses of it as a source, but there has been no previous discussion about this on RSN. Author of the article has published plenty of other AI-related articles [32]. A search on Google Scholar shows a bunch of uses in scholarly journals. Some clearly peer-reviewed, high-quality journals that use AIM as a source include:

At worst, marginally reliable. Possibly reliable source if taken to RSN. This source is used exactly once as of the current revision.

"Troy Baker angers the internet with NFT partnership" Checkpoint Gaming Yes per WP:VG/RS
"15.ai: All about 15.ai and the best alternative" Speechify Yes per WP:PRIMARY and WP:EXPERTSPS; will only used with in-text attribution
"Voice actor Troy Baker announces his involvement in "voice NFT" project Voiceverse with an antagonistic tweet, shortly before it's revealed that the project stole work" Web3 Is Going Just Great Yes per WP:EXPERTSPS and will only used with in-text attribution
"Voiceverse NFT admits to taking voice lines from non-commercial service" NME Yes per WP:VG/RS
"Troy Baker-backed NFT company admits to using content without permission" Stevivor Yes per WP:VG/RS
"Why Biden, Trump, and Obama Arguing Over Video Games Is YouTube's New Obsession" Inverse Yes per most recent discussion in WP:VG/RS
"Website Lets You Make GLaDOS Say Whatever You Want" (alternate Kotaku Australia mirror) Kotaku Yes; WP:VG/RS notes editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance, which some editors have categorized this article as, as they view the "Odds and Ends" section as such. I strongly disagree with such categorization, since if you actually look at the article that is listed in WP:VG/RS as an example of an article with no reporting significance, you get this pitiful article, which is clearly nowhere near the same realm as the Kotaku article covering 15.ai. Anyway, we can invoke WP:USEBYOTHERS; clearly reliable sources (per WP:VG/RS) that directly cite this Kotaku article include PC Gamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, Game Informer, GamerSky, and Den Fami Nico Gamer. Per How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. this is a pretty obviously reliable source.
"Создателей голосовых NFT, поддерживаемых Троем Бейкером, обвинили в воровстве голоса" Shazoo Yes; popular Russian gaming news website that is used 203 times on Russian Wikipedia. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, peer-reviewed journals that use the source include
[38] [39] [40] YouTube, Twitch Yes per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As it turns out, there is an essay that directly supports my hunch. Per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation., which is exactly how the primary sources are being used in this article. Partial per the policies outlined by WP:PRIMARY, as long as there is no independent interpretation or analysis based on the source according to the second bullet point. Per WP:PRIMARY, the source may only be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The article only uses these primary sources to quote the voice actors without any external analysis or interpretation.
The AI revolution coming to Skyrim and The Witcher 3's mod scenes PCGamesN Yes per WP:VG/RS
"The most underrated talent in AI?" Marginal Revolution Yes per WP:EXPERTSPS. Tyler Cowen is a world-renowned economist and Marginal Revolution is his own blog.
"Troy Baker ends partnership with NFT company Voiceverse" NME Yes per WP:VG/RS
“15.ai ”, Fifteen-kun & Project 2020 and March 2020 News Gwern Yes; world-renowned pseudonymous writer of AI, psychology, and statistics; hundreds of citations on Google Scholar, used in 232 English Wikipedia pages

–GM 03:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

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:15.ai/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GregariousMadness (talk · contribs) 13:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: BarntToust (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


This looks like an interesting, controversial, and wacky subject. I love these kinds of articles! Many quirky elements of popular culture converging about the subject, and as it respects the article itself, I will also be judging based off of the concerns with the last GA nomination. The catalogue of sources provided will help out greatly. BarntToust 01:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, and thank you for reviewing! I'll be here ready to edit and clarify; please ask me any questions at any time! –GM 12:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

1. Well written?

[edit]

First concern is that the inactivity and revival sections could honestly just be one section. Besides just being two sole sentences to the both of them: The weakness of sources the "Revival" section is that it consists of two PIRMARY sources, and the Equestria Daily site, which to be fair, has been addressed in that helpful source organizer. Nonetheless, I think it's probably smart to merge that section with "Inactivity", which is a section that is sourced more strongly (with The Guardian being the particularly good source in the "Inactivity" section). This would also assuage a referencing concern I would have in section 2 of this review. BarntToust 00:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done, combined the two sections into one and added another sentence. –GM 00:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. Facts? WP:V? So on, so forth.

[edit]

I will spot-check a few instances of the more iffy sources, actually, instead of picking at random. The sources determined to be yellow or even red in the source organizer. BarntToust 00:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All instances that I have checked of Brony, and the niche, less established tech websites, all of these verify that which they are cited to.
There's two kinda-concerns I have with references:
  • make sure that the references that cite primary sources, like 15.dev and their Twitter, make sure these have archive-urls saved to the Internet Archive, or Ghost Archive, or Archive.today. Main concern is that since this is an organization with a history behind it of instability and going under, these references wouldn't be as stable, perhaps, concerning link rot.
  • According to the source organizer, the appraisal of Kotaku, it may not entirely observe consensus at WP:KOTAKU. 2023 articles and so forth, these are considered generally not trustworthy because the works published could be AI slop for all anyone knows—but this is a 2021 article, where the community is iffy but not completely dismissive about the editorial content of the website. The source itself is one of the instances of modern Kotaku journalism that probably passes a turnitin test. I must insist that the source organizer is appended to say that beyond the observation of the opinions of the VGRS folks, this use of the source is respectful of the consensus at the greater RSPLIST. I'd only insist that this defense of the source is stipulated because of the past couple of go-arounds at GAN had consisted pretty importantly of source-reliability concerns. That's all on that front.
BarntToust 00:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done, added archive links to primary sources. –GM 02:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! rockin'. BarntToust 02:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check: according to ol' reliable Earwig, https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/voice-cloning-for-the-masses/ pulls the only yellow score, 47.6 similarity. Text comparison reveals that the two offending pieces are quotes from the computer scientist Andrew Ng—used word-for-word in the Ethical concerns subsection. Since there seems to be no inherent value of placing the entire statements he provided versus simply writing the gist of his concerns, WP:OQ applies. Once those quotes are re-written, I will pass criteria 2d. BarntToust 20:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done, thank you for pointing that out! To clarify, is there anything I need for 2b, or are you still looking through the sources? –GM 21:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still looking at the sources, with the help of that source organizer provided. Beyond those concerns I raised with the defense of Kotaku above, I've not so far judged any issue with the reliability of the sources cited in the article. Once I get done with that—really, I don't suspect I'll find any substantial issue with the ones I've yet to read up on—I'll check that ticker off and get on to part 3. BarntToust 23:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources in the article at this point are up-to-snuff or if any question is taken with a select few, there is satisfactory justification in the organizer. BarntToust 23:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. Focus

[edit]

Don't see any issue with the scope or detail. BarntToust 23:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. NPOV

[edit]

No issue. BarntToust 23:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stability

[edit]

Doesn't seem that any of the deletion bids or quality concerns of times past infringe currently on the article. BarntToust 23:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6. Illustration

[edit]

Images used with CC licenses look pretty good, but maybe humor me in my doubtfulness that those in the Legacy section may not actually be necessary to get across the points the article makes. I don't really see the value of a freeze frame of the TF2 Heavy in that section, maybe an external media link to a video of that video/broadcast would be better illustrative? I can suggest {{External media}} or I can also recommend a custom template on an article I contributed to that I'm pretty sure was figured out by fellow editor Tamzin, it is on the third paragraph of End Poem#Use in Minecraft.

Beyond this, if the image for The Tax Breaks is to be used as illustration, there needs to be at least discussion of the video in its own right in the body of the article. BarntToust 00:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: I think the importance of the image lies less with the freeze frame of the Heavy, but more with the CNN logo and the Twitter handle, as they directly show that 15.ai reached mainstream media attention through the CNN broadcast of a fan edit. I agree that having it as an external media could work, but I think it's more concise and genuinely better for readers to show a frame with all three elements (CNN logo, Twitter handle, and freeze frame of the Heavy) so that they can understand what happened without actually having to watch the video themselves; they don't actually have to watch the full clip of the CNN broadcast for them to get the point of the image (think of Trump's cameo in Home Alone 2 and mentally replace it with the Heavy with an AI generated voice), whereas for the End Poem, if you haven't witnessed it before, you need the external media to really understand what it is. What do you think? –GM 00:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a short mention of The Tax Breaks in the sentence that describes fan creations that use 15.ai. I believe these should address your remaining concerns? –GM 00:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the CNN Twitter fan edit broadcast, that's certainly never a way I thought about it. It is an undoubtedly effective way to illustrate, yes, but all at once I remain skeptical if the words "a viral video of Trump being replaced by Heavy from TF2 was broadcast on CNN" in the body, if those simply don't impart all that is necessary for a reader to understand that, well, that all of that happened. I'm also not really convinced that such an incident is not so important—WP:DUE really—that its importance convinces me of it needing to be there. Meanwhile, I admittedly don't really think that a reader of Wikipedia having to click on a link and watch 10–15 seconds of broadcast footage really informs them of anything worthy of their time being spent. Meanwhile, in image form, being able to look at a screengrab of a CNN report on this stuff, while insanely easy and instantly informative, I'm not sure that inherently adds enough encyclopedic value to abide with the guidelines at WP:NFURG. BarntToust 00:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust: I see what you mean. Hmm... do you think that if I converted the CNN segment into a short GIF (similar to how Elon Musk salute controversy shows the event as a short GIF) adds enough value to abide by WP:NFURG? I think this would address the concern that not much value while still making it easy and instantly informative. –GM 01:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That balances pretty well the value concerns and the fact that it's content that needs to live up to standards of importance and of the value imparted, in order to justify its existence. GIF (or JIFF) away! BarntToust 01:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust: Oh no... I looked at the source URL of the image so I could download the video, but it looks like the video has been scrubbed off of CNN: [41]. So even if we wanted to link it as an external media, we literally wouldn't be able to do so. What do you think? Do you think this is enough of a justification to include the image as there is no better alternative available on the Internet? I'll keep trying to look for it for archival purposes, but so far I've had no luck. False alarm, I found it! It was just under a different URL. –GM 01:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the big concerns in WP:NFURG is "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media." Regardless of the medium used, GIF or png or what have you, I still have doubts on why the simple sourced text in the article cannot adequately convey the idea that Trump-Heavy internet buffoonery was covered in a news broadcast. I also wonder why the idea that this specific video made with the 15.ai tools is large-scale important in its own right, and also I don't see the great importance of said video being a news item one night on a news channel. BarntToust 01:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust: checkY On second thought, I agree. I've replaced it with the External media template. Please let me know if that's satisfactory! –GM 02:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! Thank you for doing that. BarntToust 02:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I also have WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns with the Tax Breaks video in the article as a whole. It is not really discussed at length or of importance. It looks nice, and it is illustrative of the ridiculousness of some of the creations made leveraging this software, but the imagery really isn't vital in its own right to impart what simple words can do just fine.
Non-free content guidelines really don't concern themselves with whether or not the non-free content is effective in its nature, really it is concerned with whether or not the non-free illustration or media is absolutely necessary to impart (substantial enough to establish its value) encyclopedic value to the reader. BarntToust 00:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For its triviality, I cannot really approve of the passing mention of the Tax Breaks fan video, as if it warrated a non-free content image, which also really doesn't live up to the question of "why the subject [the use of 15.ai technology to create some (random?) MLP fan video] can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media". BarntToust 01:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Understood and agreed. Removed the passing mention and the image for this. –GM 01:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the image with the External media template as well linking directly to the YouTube video. I think that should be the last of it! –GM 02:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, all good. Will get this GA passed. BarntToust 02:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the comprehensive GA review!! Hope you have an amazing day :) –GM 02:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You as well. Amazing work with this wacky, wonderful article—one of the most interesting I've had the privilege of reading/reviewing on Wikipedia! BarntToust 02:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]