Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Facebook/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Facebook edit

Self-nomination.The article is about the #1 online destination for college students and it discusses the effects the website has had on student life. The article is 36kb long and has two related subarticles. [1] [2] I believe that the comments from a recent peer review have been addressed; the article is now properly sourced and has subpages. —L1AM (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- I noticed a few things that should be changed.
  • It became something of a network phenomenon,. Should be it became a network phenomenon.
  • Additionally, a group of music In addition sounds better, in my opinion.
  • 7 red links. This isn't part of the FAC criteria, but it is def. better not to have any. One or two is okay though.
  • Two citations needed in the article.

Otherwise, it's a good article. -Osbus 21:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I changed the wording on 'network phenomenon' and 'In addition'. I removed some unneeded redlinks; Accel Partners and ConnectU remain. I also removed some uncited content - a sentence about comparisons to MySpace remains. Thanks for your help! --L1AM (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support I like this article very much; very well-written. I do think a few things could be changed. For one, remove the "Overview" section and integrate its information in another part; the article should just start out with "History." Second, although the article is very well-sourced, statements like this one, "Rates are on a per-impression basis at $5 for 2,500 Flyers (students get steep discounts at their own schools at $5 for 10,000 Flyers)" don't have citations and need them. The "Addition of Features" subcategory reads more like bulleted lists towards the end (just without the bullets). Somehow try to combine this text together without losing the chronology but making the prose flow better. Mmmm that's all I can think of for now....maybe a few more pictures, but that won't affect my vote. Overall, good job though. Take care of these things and I'll support fully.UberCryxic 00:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merged the Overview section into other parts in the article. I'll try and work on the addition of features section next. --L1AM (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: overall, it's good, but someone needs to go through and fix quite a few fuzzy expressions, such as "The viewing of detailed profile data is restricted to users from the same school or confirmed friends, though one can change their personal options regarding this." More commas would help to eliminate ambiguity in places such as: "facebooks that many colleges give to incoming students, faculty, and staff depicting members of the campus community". There are too many one-sentence paragraphs; they could easily be merged. Tony 00:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The picture with Jimmy Wales picture is a bad example of a celebrity profile. Is he recognisable to people outsidethe Wiki community? This is an encyclopedia and it should be familiar to any reader and not only to wikipedians. It would be better to replace it with another famous person to avoid this kind of self-reference. CG 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Maybe stripping the image of Suzanne Somers as Chrissy from Three's Company currently on the List of Facebook features subarticle and using it in place of Jimbo's? --DanielNuyu 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The "References in popular culture" section is completely NN material. In the digital age, 60,000 downloads is nothing, and certainly cannot be called a "worldwide hit". Also, if anyone has watched that Facebook movie, it is not very good, and as far as I know, it has never reached anymore than a showing on Google video. Even if it has been shown on campus, it's still not notable enough for inclusion here. I would axe the entire section and wait to add it back when a show like SNL or MADtv parodies Facebook. There was already a discussion regarding this on the talk page, and whoever added the material back ignored the opinions of myself and several other editors here to do so. — Scm83x hook 'em 00:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed that section. If someone disagrees, they can justify why it should be returned here. (Earlier, someone added the section back and I expanded it - sorry about that, I should have just deleted it then. Anyway, hopefully this is suitable.) --L1AM (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good, and a bit different. I'd like to see this as a featured article. Colonel Tom 14:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; citation #9 is pure original research; please find a secondary source or eliminate that claim. Also, the information at the end of the "Addition of features" section needs to be cited. Finally, is there information on which schools have the most users of facebook? I recall reading in The Daily Collegian that Penn State has more members than any other school in the country, but that newspaper isn't exactly known for its reliability. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 05:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe facebook keeps a running tally of students per school on its network somewhere. see if you can find it.--ZeWrestler Talk 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Poorly written. EKN 04:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Facebook/archive1&oldid=1049877805"