Wikipedia:Peer review/Essjay controversy/archive1

Essjay controversy

Hello, I would like to have a community peer review on this article done, based on it's compliancy with established, written policy, and also for the linguistic feel/style/wording of it. thank you. - Denny 19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• The incident is still too new, in my opinion, for it to have settled on a form which would be eligible for peer review; it is barely one week old. However, it does seem to follow our written principles of NPOV and ATT, in that all statements of merit are sourced, and that the prose is written from neither an apologists nor villifier's point of view. Whitewashing/bowlderization is as much a POV violation as is defamation. We have sources, we bring them accurately, and we refrain from editorial comment. At this point, the article should be allowed to evolve, and perhaps three months from now, when it is semi-stable, it could undergo a more complete peer review. -- Avi 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree in principle, but as 1 to 3 people are so vocal still in the content choices, I want to do this now, and have more people avaluate where we are and where best go, then bring it back again in 2-3 months to build on that and aim for Good Article status... - Denny 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• The article is in serious need of oversight. Any attempt to organize the article is being revoked. A few minor adjustments to the sections will improve the quality of the article. I have attempted to organize the sections but to no avail. The images were removed without consensus. Previously, many editors wanted to pictures to remain in the article. I have made comments on the talk page without collaboration. More editors are welcome to participate and read the comments in the talk page. Please help. For more detailed information read my comments on the article's talk page. Thank you. QuackGuru ^TALK 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What personal private information is in the article that Oversight is needed? -- Avi 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • QuackGuru was referring to oversight in general, attention needed, not speaking of WP:OVER. Hbdragon88 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has considerably stabilized, and I am hoping for more input. - Denny 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New review needed

Since this peer review was first put up, it has changed considerably. Most issues have been thrashed out, consensus reached, and the article could do with another review. Several editors on the talk page have expressed a wish for the article to reach FA status; pointers for how to reach that would be gratefully received. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's very difficult to write so soon after a events. The editors at this page have my thanks for their efforts. Yet even if all other elements were perfect I don't think this article could qualify for FA yet because of stability and comprehensiveness issues. The long term impact hasn't happened yet. Durova^Charge! 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• One glaring omission is that the article by Michael Snow and Andrew Lih from The Signpost is not referenced. In the context of this article, it is probably a more reliable source than any of the mainstream media publications, and includes original reporting. It would be a mistake to exclude it simply because the article is being written on Wikipedia; were it written on a different hypothetical wiki encyclopedia that follows our policies, it would most certainly be a valid source.--ragesoss 07:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • While I see your point, one problem there is that if the signpost is reliable, then it brings up the very relevant question of why my personal observation (or a userspace essay/report I wrote on the subject) wouldn't be. After all, I and most of the other editors on the page where there when the on-wiki blowup happened. If nothing else I agree that we should include it as a related link, like we have Essjay's user talk. --tjstrf talk 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My view on the subject is that WP:SIGNPOST is held to be reliable by its relevant readers, whereas a personal userspace essay on the subject wouldn't. I'm also in two minds myself on this matter. CloudNine 16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)