Talk:Slashdot/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: –MuZemike 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose/MoS issues

In the "Traffic and users" section, Today, most major websites can handle the surge of traffic, but "slashdotting" continues to occur on smaller or independent sites. → Don't you mean "the slashdot effect" that occurs on smaller or independent sites?

I was trying to avoid using the term "slashdot" effect twice in the same sentence. Even though it's not technically a word, it is used colloquially by users of the site, and I didn't think there was a problem with using the term in parentheses. Anyway, I've changed it to simply "the effect" in that case, again, to avoid repetition. WTF? (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraphing in the "Administration" section seems a bit consistent. I was thinking of this: breaking off the "moderation system" part off the first paragraph, move the "comment system" up into that first paragraph, and then reorganize the rest. You would have paragraphs of more consistent lengths and of similar topics together.

It's really not feasible to do that since practically all of the administration discussed pertains to the moderation system. That's what makes Slashdot unique -- it's mostly user-administered and moderated through a very well thought out moderation system. The comment system and moderation system are tied together and can't be separated, really,. . . WTF? (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's possible to combine "Traffic and users" and "Publicity" into one section (or how such a section would be named), but if that can be done, that would be great; if not, it's no big deal.

Sections combined. WTF? (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Traffic and users" section, As of February 2010, the site's Alexa rating is 1,268, where the average user spending 3.7 minutes per day on the site and 45,393 sites linking in. → First, you have a case of "noun plus '-ing'" in there. Second, the part of 45,393 sites linking in grammatically doesn't make sense. Please tweak that sentence to remove the "noun plus '-ing'" and that grammar inconsistency.

If you're referring to the "site's Alexa rating", this is not an issue. It's referring to something that is concrete and verifiable. While "rating" can be a verb, of course, in this case, we're using it as a noun, in the similar manner to a TV show's "Nielsen rating", for example. Changing this would be anything but accurate. WTF? (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. WTF? (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability issues

At the end of the third-to-last paragraph of the "History" section, ... and in 2005, a "day pass" option was introduced as well, allowing non-subscribers to get the same benefits as subscribers for 24 hours if they watched a short commercial first. → [citation needed]

Statement removed since I was unable to find a reliable source to back that up. WTF? (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the last third of the "Administration" section is completely unsourced. Please add a source in there (which from reading it, I guess would be some FAQ or how-to from the Slashdot site itself).

Source added (slashdot FAQ). Virtually everything stated there is backed up by the comments and moderation section of the FAQ. WTF? (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

On hold pending improvements from what's noted above. Otherwise, good work, especially on the sourcing. –MuZemike 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other things to remember

Pay attention from time to time at [1] as I had to add a web.archive.org version of a 404 URL in one of the citations.
Make sure you review WP:LQ on logical quotations; I saw a couple (which I already corrected) cases of having the end-quotation mark after the end-puncutation where it didn't apply.
Try not to use too much "also" or "as well as" in your writing; keep the prose as crisp as possible.
Whenever you can, work to build full paragraphs in your writing. One-sentence or otherwise very short paragraphs tend to put off readers as far as quality of writing is concerned. Conversely, too long of paragraphs that tend to drone on does the same thing to readers. –MuZemike 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed – after 10 days of nothing being done, and I think that's long enough. This can be renominated, or someone can let me know if anyone wishes to address the issues above. –MuZemike 22:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues

Both File:Slashdot screen capture.png and File:Slashdot omgponies.png need better and more descriptive fair-use rationales, especially on why they are being used in the article (purpose). Right now, they both fall short of meeting WP:NFCC#8. They both also fail WP:NFCC#3b as they both say they are full-resolution. –MuZemike 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a fair-use rationale to the Slashdot screen capture image, based off of the rationale used on the screen capture for 4chan. WTF? (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the size and resolution of the Slashdot_omgponies.png image and added the fair-use rationale template to the image description, as well as modified the wording. WTF? (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions redux

On hold pending the image improvements. I'll take a second look at the prose (as I'm just now looking at them again and recalling and taking a second look), but it looks like they're all addressed. The verifiability issues look addressed. –MuZemike 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed – everything looks good and all issues have been addressed or explained adequately. Good work. –MuZemike 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]