Talk:Elon Musk/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 23:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Was checking out your profile (after seeing your FA nom of Huey Long, ofc) and noticed you had nominated this for GA. I'll have a full review in the next few days. Initial impressions are good (except for the merge requests, though that looks like it'll be resolved soon and isn't an issue with the current article really). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When do you expect to initiate the review proper? Thank you for volunteering. QRep2020 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List (initial impressions)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Note: this is not the full review, this is a summary after reading the article fully for the first time.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Some minor grammar issues, will address later in the full review. Structure is OK. Generally an "in popular culture" section would be inappropriate, but in this case it's reasonable, so, yay!
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    All of this looks good from my first impressions.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Not seeing issues here.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Looks neutral enough, which is impressive given his numerous controversies.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    The merges into the page makes it appear unstable, I don't feel right passing this while those are unresolved. Also, the talkpage looks pretty contentious. Not instantly failing, but this is a concern.
Yeah, the talk page has given me plenty of headaches... ~ HAL333 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like these were taken care of. Thanks, HAL! QRep2020 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, history indicates that the Talk page will always be a contentious space. There are regular suggestions to include fanciful or even verifiably incorrect statements that need to be "nipped in the bud", not to mention the venerating remarks that appear powered by the fan fervor that pervades anything related to Musk. QRep2020 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Sisyphean task. ~ HAL333 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    File:Elon Musk Royal Society (crop1).jpg is good (free with OTRS); File:Elon Musk 2015.jpg is good (from Flickr, doesn't appear to be license laundering); File:PBHS-facade.jpg looks fine; File:SpaceX CEO Elon Musk visits N&NC and AFSPC (190416-F-ZZ999-006) (cropped).jpg is clearly public domain and says so at the source; File:Elon Musk, Tesla Factory, Fremont (CA, USA) (8765031426).jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:Pair of 2009 SolarCity Dodge Sprinters.JPG is ok (has a weird license note but whatever); File:Elon Musk and the Neuralink Future.jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:Elon Musk Accelerates the Boring (45716125474).jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:4547274 Thai rescue workers positioning a pipe for the pumping operation in the Tham Luang cave.jpg is good (source identifies file as work of US govt employee); File:Vice President Pence at the Kennedy Space Center (49946170631).jpg is good (posted by US govt to Flickr); and File:CRS-9 (28358955546).jpg is fine though its use is iffy.
    All the files have appropriate licenses, though I strongly question the use of File:CRS-9 (28358955546).jpg as a stand-in for Musk's profile picture for a Tweet. A cropped version, either of this or of his face, would be preferable (I mean, his avatar when tweeting would be ideal, but that might not be properly licensed, and wouldn't be appropriate NFCC).
Done. ~ HAL333 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Overall this article is in decent shape and has a lot going for it. I'll give the full review over the coming few days though you may want to fix up some minor things and try to resolve the merges and disputes you have with editors on the talkpage - the article should be relatively stable to pass as a GA. I could wait for you to resolve those issues, if necessary, to continue reviewing. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elliot321, I was able to wrap up the merge discussions. ~ HAL333 17:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333 thanks, I'll continue with the full review (your ping failed as my username changed and I forgot to check back here until now - sorry!) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! =) ~ HAL333 18:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By section

Early life

Childhood and family
  • Footnote 17 (bundling other footnotes) is a weird citation style and so is having three refs on the statement (is "Musk has a younger brother, Kimbal (born 1972), and a younger sister, Tosca (born 1974)." really that controversial?)
 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a source connecting Joshua Haldeman to Musk, though it looks like some exist in Maye Musk.
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source claims "Elon mostly lived with his father, who says he owned thoroughbred horses, a yacht, several houses and a Cessna. One of their homes was in Waterkloof, a leafy suburb of Pretoria that was popular with foreign diplomats." - which is not the same as "Musk lived mostly with his father in the suburbs of Pretoria" imo - several homes, and only one specified to be in the Pretoria suburbs.
 Done Fixed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21 (Rolling Stone) is unnecessarily repeated.
 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Education
  • Everything looks good here (AGF on the offline source).

I'll get to the next section tomorrow. So far no major issues. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Business career

(evidently, I'm bad at timeliness, sorry) Elli (talk | contribs) 02:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sometimes I'll forget to give follow-up comments at featured lists for months... ~ HAL333 02:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zip2
  • Everything here is OK, but Musk brothers obtained contracts with The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, and persuaded the board of directors to abandon plans for a merger with CitySearch. Musk's attempts to become CEO were thwarted by the board. confuses me. Wasn't he a founder? The organization of this company is unclear.
 Done Clarified. Musk was a founder but never CEO. QRep2020 (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
X.com and PayPal
  • Perhaps Bill Harris should be a redlink?
Done. ~ HAL333 02:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Musk remained on the board and served as an advisor really need to be in a separate footnote? the board ousted Musk and replaced him with Thiel in September 2000, though Musk remained on the board and served as an advisor would seem to work.
I feel like that interrupts the flow. ~ HAL333 02:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else is OK.
SpaceX

First paragraph

Done. ~ HAL333 02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. ~ HAL333 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the ref is unnecessarily duplicated with no intermediate refs.
Done. ~ HAL333 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a primary source really necessary? The NYT source looks sufficient.
Done. ~ HAL333 21:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph

  • The hashtag in "#dearMoon project" is probably unnecessary.
Done. ~ HAL333 02:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two years later, SpaceX launched its first manned flight" I would just say "in 2020"
Done. ~ HAL333 02:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph

  • I don't see a source for development starting in 2015, from skimming the NYT and Space.com refs.
Reuters source added. ~ HAL333 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • including nearly $900 million in Federal Communications Commission subsidies seems ambiguous, maybe phrase it like which the US federal government has covered $900 million with including nearly $900 million in Federal Communications Commission subsidies (that's not a great phrasing, but I think you get my point - I initially assumed that SpaceX had to pay subsidies, not that they received them.
Tried but it seemed awkward. Made note instead. ~ HAL333 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tesla

First paragraph

Done. ~ HAL333 21:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Roadster should be linked to a relevant article?
Done. ~ HAL333 21:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quirky: The Remarkable Story of the Traits, Foibles, and Genius of Breakthrough Innovators Who Changed the World has an article (Quirky (book)) and should probably cite an individual page.
  • No apparent ref for Musk assumed leadership of the company as CEO and product architect in 2008, positions he still holds today.
Done. Updated and added citation. QRep2020 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps try to update the "as of 2019", though I can understand if that wouldn't be possible.

Second paragraph

  • Not sure if CleanTechnica is a reliable source, and it has a tag - possibly ask at WP:RSP? Of course, finding a better source would work too.
@Elliot321: Someone replaced it with Car and Driver, though I am not too certain if it is reliable or not. Wretchskull (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No ref for Tesla began delivery of its four-door Model S sedan in 2012.
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SEC lawsuit
  • Maybe "at a price of $420 a share, an alleged reference to marijuana" should be in a footnote? Feels more footnote-worthy (and ref 114 currently looks really awkward).
Totally agree. ~ HAL333 02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SolarCity
  • The first CNET ref is a deadlink and should be marked as such.
Done. ~ HAL333 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the self-published SolarCity ref needed?
Done. ~ HAL333 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing with CleanTechnica as above.
Done. ~ HAL333 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Panasonic stop working with SolarCity, or did the factory close altogether? This is unclear.
Done. Panasonic pulled its workers. 21:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is Musk still dealing with this lawsuit?
Yes. COVID-19 has delayed a lot of the suits that I've been paying attention to over the last few years. ~ HAL333 02:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neuralink
  • with the eventual purpose of helping human beings merge with software and keep pace with advancements in artificial intelligence. These enhancements could improve memory or allow for more direct interfacing with computing devices. is pretty much directly copied from the Verge ref.
Fixed. What do you think now? Wretchskull (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: no longer looks like a copyvio but the phrasing feels a bit clunky. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: Reworded it and broke it down from 2 to 3 sentences. What do you think now? Rewording something about a narrow subject is rather difficult so tell me if you are still unsatisfied. Wretchskull (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: looks ok. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Boring Company
Done. Added new citation. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian and Bloomberg refs on "In early 2017, they began discussions with regulatory bodies and initiated construction of a 30-foot (9.1 m) wide, 50-foot (15 m) long, and 15-foot (4.6 m) deep "test trench" on the premises of SpaceX's offices as it required no permits" seem unnecessary.
Done. ~ HAL333 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "flamethrower"? Also, why is it in quotes? These are real things.
Linked. ~ HAL333 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the usual "jocularity" that pervades much of what Musk is involved with, the product is actually named Not-A-Flamethrower: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/10/17445838/boring-company-flamethrower-elon-musk-tweets-party QRep2020 (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@QRep2020: that doesn't mean it isn't a flamethrower, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. Will remove quotation marks. QRep2020 (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for the SPS on this statement.

@HAL333: (ping) I've done more of the review. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've covered this round now? QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@QRep2020: yeah, I'll continue with the next sections soon (feel free to ping me btw, easier than remembering to check back here and my watchlist is kinda messy). Elli (talk | contribs) 12:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other efforts

Hyperloop
  • in around 2011? This whole sentence is clunky.
Done. ~ HAL333 21:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musk unveiled the concept which he dubbed the Hyperloop - should there be a comma here? (this has an ambiguous meaning without one, and I feel like the one intended - discussing the concept in the previous sentence - requires one)
That is correct; done. Wretchskull (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ABC news ref on The alpha design for the system was published in a whitepaper posted to the Tesla and SpaceX blogs. doesn't back up the content, and the other two are primary sources - this isn't ideal (though if another ref can't be found, removing the ABC one work)
@Elli: I replaced it with a secondary journal. I have one problem though: page one in the source, chapter "II. Hyperloop", only partially supports the article text. The rest of the source stating that it was included in Musk's blog is only shown in the corresponding reference that the source text supports the statement with (reference [4] in the source). Should page 1 and the references-page be included in the article ref or should a chapter syntax be used in the ref? I've tried the latter but it doesn't work because of an error I can't seem to fix. Wretchskull (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: this looks fine, though it only supports it being published to the Tesla blog - not SpaceX. I'd just remove "and SpaceX" and be done with it. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: I'd love to do that, but the problem is that I see SpaceX get mentioned many times in many reliable sources. However, these never tell anything in-depth about the competition and mostly mention winners. I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Wretchskull (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The document scoped out the technology and outlined a notional route where such a transport system could be built between the Greater Los Angeles Area and the San Francisco Bay Area[155] at an estimated total cost of $6 billion.[156] the primary source [156] isn't needed here. The ref in the middle of the sentence includes the $6 billion cost
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal, if technologically feasible at the costs he has cited, would make Hyperloop travel cheaper than any other mode of transport for such long distances.[157] the source says that "supporters claim" this, not that it's necessarily true. It's probably due weight to mention it, but it doesn't look like zdnet did an independent analysis.
  • In June 2015, Musk announced a design competition for students and others to build Hyperloop pods to operate on a SpaceX-sponsored mile-long track in a 2015–2017 Hyperloop pod competition. no reference for this sentence (the one in the next sentence doesn't verify it)
OpenAI
  • Everything here looks fine.
Tham Luang cave rescue and defamation case
  • Impressively, everything here looks fine. also lmfao I didn't realize what a mess that was
The whole fiasco deserves its own subarticle, but a consensus decided to merge. Oh well. ~ HAL333 21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, it should have its own article! Elli (talk | contribs) 02:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2018 Joe Rogan podcast appearance
  • No reference for the quote "Almost never. I know a lot of people like weed and that's fine, but I don't find that is very good for productivity... not for me.".
Removed. He is already quoted defending himself later. ~ HAL333 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 60 Minutes?
Done. ~ HAL333 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Music ventures
  • Primary source on On March 30, 2019, Musk released a rap track, "RIP Harambe", on SoundCloud under the name "Emo G Records".[197] is unnecessary.
Done. ~ HAL333 21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include some details about Harambe? The sources linked mention the incident, so the article should too - and link to Killing of Harambe, of course.
Done. QRep2020 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On January 30, 2020, Musk released an EDM track, "Don't Doubt Ur Vibe", featuring his own lyrics and vocals.[200] this ref is kinda redundant, but not really a big deal.
Donations and non-profits
Done. ~ HAL333 21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The foundation has been criticized for the relatively small amount of wealth donated. no reference on this.
Done. Added reference. QRep2020 (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: here's some more to work on. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli:, I think we are up to date now. QRep2020 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@QRep2020: gotcha, I'll continue today/tomorrow (looking good so far!) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: a kindly reminder. QRep2020 (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@QRep2020: thanks. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth

  • Image looks to be appropriately licensed - perhaps the graph extension could be used instead, but it's fine.
  • First paragraph is fine, both sources look OK.
  • I don't see how At the start of 2020, Musk was the 35th richest person in the world, with a net worth of $27 billion. is verified - the source writes Musk started 2020 worth about $27 billion, and was barely in the top 50 richest people. but I don't see more specificity there.
  • The rest of the second paragraph is appropriately sourced.
  • The deal stipulated that Musk only receive the compensation if Tesla reached certain market values. is grammatically incorrect ("receive" should be "receives")
  • and has been described in one lawsuit as "excessive" uh, what? Why were they sued? I'd write another sentence or two about this somewhere.
Removed instead. It didn't really add much. ~ HAL333 02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps link "cash poor" to wikt:cash poor?
  • Most of his equity is in Tesla and SpaceX,[222] neither of which pay dividends.[223][224] this is kinda redundant to the above paragraph - and we don't need these three refs. The bloomberg ref on the previous sentence verifies this.
  • The rest of this looks fine.
Addressed the rest. ~ HAL333 02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for how long it's been taking me with this review (I'm in the middle of finals, but that's no excuse for how slow I've been) Elli (talk | contribs) 13:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm in a busy stretch irl as well and have taken my time on this nominatin as well (evidenced by Wretchskull and QRep2020's much appreciated stepping in). On a side note, I wonder if we're a in the running for the longest open GA review... ~ HAL333 02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: perhaps! Not sure how that would reflect on me, though... Elli (talk | contribs) 03:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Views

This section has been the most controversial by far, hence the larger number of references, given that, can most of them remain? ~ HAL333 14:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
  • In an interview with The Washington Post, Musk stated he was a "significant (though not top-tier) donor to Democrats," but that he also gives heavily to Republicans. Musk further stated that political contributions are a requirement to have a voice in the United States government.[228][229] this is fine, though the second ref seems unnecessary
Removed. ~ HAL333 14:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musk criticized then-candidate Donald Trump,[230] but later accepted an invitation to participate in two business advisory councils for Trump.[231][232][233] seems a bit synth/overreferency.
  • He subsequently resigned from both in June 2017, in protest against Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement.[234][235] the second ref is just his Twitter and unnecessary. Though, I can't easily verify this from the BBC link, that page is incredibly long. Perhaps try finding a better source for this?
Addressed this one and the previous one about Trump relation. QRep2020 (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 2020, Musk tweeted "Pronouns suck" to significant backlash on Twitter, including from his partner Grimes.[239][240][241][242] The tweet has been perceived by some as transphobic and an attack on non-binary identities.[243] more overreferencing - trim this down to two refs at most.
This has been pretty controversial over on the talk page and multiple references were added to show that it was due. In that case, can they remain? ~ HAL333 14:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: I think it might make sense to do bundling here, if it's absolutely necessary to have this many references. However, I do think that GA noms are a good time to trim reference-cruft that comes up in situations like this. Do what you like, but the current situation feels excessive. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • His stance has been called hypocritical as his businesses have received billions of dollars in subsidies.[247][248][249] only the first ref seems to actually discuss this.
Done. ~ HAL333 14:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musk, a longtime opponent of short-selling, has repeatedly criticized the practice and argued it should be illegal.[250][251] In early 2021, he encouraged the GameStop short squeeze.[252][253] this isn't an issue, but I'd consider mentioning why he's actually against it - in that it hurts him as a business owner (pretty sure I've seen this info in RS).
He is against the practice because short-selling, say Tesla, amounts to an effort to profit from his companies' loss of market value as exemplified by their stock prices. Towards this end, short-sellers often organize and publish "oppo research" and "dirt" about the companies that they believe to be currently overvalued or straight up fraudulent; there is a large short-seller contingency in TSLAQ for instance that is constantly publicizing their findings and pet theories. Naturally, he does not like any of this.
With that said, I'm not sure how to get across all of that tersely and with sources. QRep2020 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do feel like it's important context, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I tried my best! QRep2020 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
COVID-19
  • He claimed that "Kids are essentially immune" to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus,[261][262] and called "the coronavirus panic...dumb".[263][264][265][266][267] no need for five refs here.
  • Musk repeatedly criticized lockdowns and violated local orders by re-opening the Tesla Fremont factory.[268][269][270][271] or four here - trim these
  • In March 2020, Musk predicted there would be "close to zero new cases in US too by end of April".[255][272][273][274][275] more overreferencing
Addressed the three of these. QRep2020 (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, is there any secondary source that could be cited for the included Tweet, instead of the Tweet itself?
The Tweet template usually includes a link to the actual Tweet. As long as it is sourced by secondsry RS in body, it's fine imo. ~ HAL333 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial intelligence and public transit
  • Why are AI and public transit in the same section? If this is just "miscellany", why not just put it at the top of the "Views" section isntead of its own subsection?
I think this is because Musk has projects/companies based on "solving problems" he sees in AI and mass transit and so they speak to important acts of his and so are serve more than incidental views of his. QRep2020 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musk has frequently spoken about the potential dangers of artificial intelligence (AI), repeatedly calling it the greatest threat to humanity.[286][287] - I'd extend the link to cover all the text of "potential dangers of artificial intelligence" instead of just "potential dangers"
  • Musk and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg have clashed on the issue, with Zuckerberg calling his warnings "pretty irresponsible".[290][291][292][293][294] overreferencing
Addressed these latter two. QRep2020 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333 and QRep2020: here's some more, when you're ready. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

Overall, not many issues here though some minor areas for improvement.

  • Musk met his first wife, Canadian author Justine Wilson, while attending Queen's University. They married in 2000 and separated in 2008.[288] Their first child, son Nevada Alexander Musk,[289] died of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) at the age of 10 weeks.[290][291] They share custody of their five surviving children, all sons.[292][293][294] all of this is fine content-wise, though refs should probably be trimmed
Done. ~ HAL333 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musk was later accused of having an affair with Heard while she was still married to Johnny Depp.[302][303][304][305] same here, even for a controversial statement, four refs is a bit much.
 Done ~ HAL333 18:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL on the baby name (this section is fine)
  • From the early 2000s until late 2020, Musk resided in California where both Tesla and SpaceX were founded and where their headquarters are still located.[315] As of December 2020, Musk resides in Texas.[315][316][317] maybe mention why he decided to move to Texas?
Done. ~ HAL333 17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have a knack for asking the controversy-laden questions! ;) I'll see what I can find in some source material. QRep2020 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found anything that I believe will work to explain his reasoning here and I do not want to hold up the GAN further. Maybe we can table this point for now? QRep2020 (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

Actually a decent IPC section! Though Elon Musk in popular culture could use some help, that's out of scope here.

  • I'd mention him hosting SNL, that was kinda a big deal.
 Done ~ HAL333 18:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

Again, List of awards and honors received by Elon Musk could use some improvement though that's not in scope to this review. This section seems to do well at only mentioning the most relevant awards, so I don't see any issues either.

Notes and references

No issues here, well within the bounds of acceptable citevar. A few CS1 errors, might wanna fix those.

External links

Yeah, also fine.

@HAL333 and QRep2020: I've gone through the entire article now. It seems like most of my suggestions have been addressed, so in a few days I'll read through it again, see if there are any things that are still issues, and if so see about dealing with them. Sorry about how long this process has taken, but it's quite close to becoming a GA, at least. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elli, No worries - my lack of haste in responding to your comments is a large cause of that. But I believe I have finally addressed them all. ~ HAL333 16:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List (after review and improvements)

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):
    As mentioned below, uses leadcite - the lead accurately summarizes the important parts of the body. All other criteria are fine too.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    After extensive review, the sourcing situation has improved to be sufficient for a GA (assuming good faith for the offline sources cited). Leadcite is applied appropriately. As for copyvio - earwig's findings look initially disturbing, but only because there are a significant number of websites that have mirrored this article. When looking at reliable sources, the only things that look suspicious are quotes - which, well, copying those is kinda the point.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Sections that could be overly detailed are instead split into subarticles as summary style dictates.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Somewhat impressive, given the article, but it certainly seems neutral.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Seems to have stabilized.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Nice job on getting this to GA - thanks for hanging in with me for the long time it took to review this (hopefully future reviews will not be so lengthy).

@HAL333 and QRep2020: passing the article. Nice job! Elli (talk | contribs) 17:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk/GA1&oldid=1026865325"