Talk:Suzette Quintanilla
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Suzette Quintanilla was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 2, 2026, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Possible AI-generated content
Concerns have been raised about AI-generated content in this article. This is a procedural talk page section to discuss it. Rationale given: the initial 2025 rewrite, extensive WP:AISIGNS here and in user's other edits Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- The article is currently in queue for a WP:GOCE. This should help reduce the AISIGNS and other errors found in this article. – jona ✉ 21:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Gnomingstuff Thank you for raising. The article is currently nominated for GA and a tag like this would probably immediately DQ it. I understand the rationale provided, but what was the evidence presented? Could that be posted here too for visibility? Making a claim is just an assertion and I think it does a disservice to the GA nominator. I do think the article will benefit from GOCE but the evidence of AISIGNS should be presented here and not just the assertion. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 16:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- I already said that in the post: version 1 (as in, the June 2025 removal of the redirect, as well as the user's other edits. They speak for themselves, if you read the AI signs page and then compare that to the initial version, you will see that this is an extremely obvious straight-down-the-line textbook case. Literally just even do a CTRL-F Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Also, don't ping me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting. AJona1992, curious if you could explain the nature of your edits and if you actually used AI to generate the context from scratch or if you simply used it for copyediting, etc.? Also, did you vet every source for proper attribution? The large update all at once from June is often a sign that AI was used, but I don't want to assume because I know that some editors work out of Word, Google Doc, etc. (I certainly have myself and that could easily explain the large updates at times). Morogris (✉ • ✎) 17:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- As an experienced Wikipedia user for over 15 years now, not sure why anyone would assume that I'd be so careless to allow an AI to generate content and just copy and paste it onto an article and submitted for GA. I understand how new users and those who abuse AI and Wikipedia can do serious damage, but that wouldn't be the case for someone with my tenure. Anyone can see my edit history when creating and expanding articles. I typically use my sandbox, edit/expand, and then move it to its mainspace. The only thing that has changed is the introduction to AI. I still use my sandbox, edit/expand in my own writing, have the AI copy-edit the language with an advanced vocabulary, proofread/edit it, and then move it to its mainspace. The only AI generated content is copy-editing my own writing sourced from WP:The Wikipedia Library, my own collection, and general Google searches. The large update in June is because I worked on this article for months in my sandbox before moving it into its mainspace here, which is my style of article creation/expansion for over a decade now. I also use Notepad on my laptop to write and I always rewrite the copy-editing done with AI in the sandbox. I never do copy-paste edits; I always want to make sure the finished content is exactly as what the source says, just with an advanced vocabulary. So, pretty harmless, but I understand where concern users are coming from and as with AI, I will adapt. Best – jona ✉ 14:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- All good, thanks for letting us know. I just wanted your response for the record since I know you've been around the block a lot and want to assume good faith. I don't necessarily agree that this is AISIGNS given your track record and that's why I asked Gnomingstuff to clarify since they were making the assertion. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- As an experienced Wikipedia user for over 15 years now, not sure why anyone would assume that I'd be so careless to allow an AI to generate content and just copy and paste it onto an article and submitted for GA. I understand how new users and those who abuse AI and Wikipedia can do serious damage, but that wouldn't be the case for someone with my tenure. Anyone can see my edit history when creating and expanding articles. I typically use my sandbox, edit/expand, and then move it to its mainspace. The only thing that has changed is the introduction to AI. I still use my sandbox, edit/expand in my own writing, have the AI copy-edit the language with an advanced vocabulary, proofread/edit it, and then move it to its mainspace. The only AI generated content is copy-editing my own writing sourced from WP:The Wikipedia Library, my own collection, and general Google searches. The large update in June is because I worked on this article for months in my sandbox before moving it into its mainspace here, which is my style of article creation/expansion for over a decade now. I also use Notepad on my laptop to write and I always rewrite the copy-editing done with AI in the sandbox. I never do copy-paste edits; I always want to make sure the finished content is exactly as what the source says, just with an advanced vocabulary. So, pretty harmless, but I understand where concern users are coming from and as with AI, I will adapt. Best – jona ✉ 14:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting. AJona1992, curious if you could explain the nature of your edits and if you actually used AI to generate the context from scratch or if you simply used it for copyediting, etc.? Also, did you vet every source for proper attribution? The large update all at once from June is often a sign that AI was used, but I don't want to assume because I know that some editors work out of Word, Google Doc, etc. (I certainly have myself and that could easily explain the large updates at times). Morogris (✉ • ✎) 17:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Gnomingstuff Thank you for raising. The article is currently nominated for GA and a tag like this would probably immediately DQ it. I understand the rationale provided, but what was the evidence presented? Could that be posted here too for visibility? Making a claim is just an assertion and I think it does a disservice to the GA nominator. I do think the article will benefit from GOCE but the evidence of AISIGNS should be presented here and not just the assertion. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 16:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
GA review
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:Suzette Quintanilla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: AJona1992 (talk · contribs) 12:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 00:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
This is unfortunately a quickfail, which is probably why it has sat at WP:GAN for so long. The neutrality of this article is severely compromised, for which I have now tagged it. It is a long way away from meeting GA criterion 4, and therefore I have to quickfail it. Many details included in this article are just fluff trivia or excessively duplicative (e.g. There is constant, constant re-emphasis of how Suzette has always acted in line with what Selena would have wanted, including an entire section title!) There is a huge amount of promotional material cited to a recent YouTube interview which is a non-independent primary source.
I'm not surprised this has been tagged for AI-generation; in fact, if LLMs were not used in article writing, I'd be shocked. The number of sentences which have the LLM-favoured "[main clause] , [participle phrase]" structure is exhausting to read, along with the tedious verbosity of promotional material like: "On September 25, 2024, Suzette appeared on behalf of the Selena Foundation at the unveiling of the Kendra Scott Yellow Library at West Oso Elementary School. During a story time event, she emphasized the importance of providing educational resources to schools and helping children connect with reading. Suzette stresses the importance of children seeing themselves reflected in stories, noting that recognition and representation help foster a meaningful connection between learning and identity." I almost fell asleep just reading that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
GA review resp
@AirshipJungleman29 Thanks for your review, I just have a question. How is an interview she was in a non-independent primary source? The article is currently at WP:GOCE/REQ which should help with the main issues found in this article. Thanks – jona ✉ 23:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- The definitions of primary sources and independent sources may be helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)