Talk:Whedonesque.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Whedonesque.com was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 11, 2008
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
This Buffyverse-related article is part of WikiProject Buffyverse, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Buffy, Angel & the rest of the Buffyverse. You can help! Visit the project page, episode checklist or discuss an article at the project talk-page.
Buffy Portal
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


[edit] GA Review

Quick failed due lack of reliable sources. Kind of agree with Orangemike's rationale. Seek a PR before renominating for GA. miranda 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Miranda, thanks for taking the time to review this article. This was my first GA nom, so my apologies if I should have taken this through PR first. Can you give me an idea of what more reliable sources you'd like? Or would you just like the existing ones to be called out in the reflist? Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No blogs. This may help explain what reliable sources are. Here's the link for peer review. miranda 20:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's an article about a blog. The point of the self-references is to elaborate on notability, which is reliably established by the references and awards in other media--I've been enhancing them a bit so they're easier to read. A blog is always a reliable source for what was said on that blog, is it not? Please, have another look, especially at the external citations. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Information such as the criticism has this website have? What do the producers of Buffy think of this website? Also, IMHO, the article is kind of short (like the intro to the awards section). miranda 17:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional feedback. Stop back in a week or so and see what I've done with it. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestions

Some more suggestions before continuing: please please please read WP:HEAD and Wikipedia:MSH#Article titles. For structure, the article ideally will have these sections, in this order: History, Main features, Subsites (if applicable), Reception/Criticism (as appropriate), References, External links. Ideally, it should not focus soley on the site's features and contents, but its encyclopedic details and its relevance away from itself. Also, make sure to not diverge too much into stuff about Whedon rather than the site itself.Collectonian (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's going to take me a bit to get to this, so I've reverted my edits for the time being. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources to cite

Dumping ground of found citations to Whedonesque from elsewhere relevant, to be removed as I add them to appropriate places in the article: Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Papers and paper's blogs are reliable, personal blogs are not. miranda 06:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Understood. The only personal blog that I planned to link to was Jane Espenson's--since she's a notable person connected to the site commenting about it. Every source listed above won't necessarily be inserted, just the ones that serve as the best WP:RS to illustrate WP:N and augment what's already there. I stuck my previous work on the page into User:Jclemens/Scratch, where I plan on working on it before adding it back to mainspace--feel free to add that to your watchlist, I'd welcome your feedback on it as it develops, rather than finding out I've completely gone off the rails when I do put it back here. Jclemens (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)