Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Twitter/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 [1].

Twitter[edit]

Nominator(s): Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Twitter/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that together, we as the Wikipedia community have turned it into a well-written, useful article of high quality. I also want to see some critical commentary, after the changes to our recent peer review were made and the article breezed through its Good article nomination with no problems being raised. Thanks! Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section requires citation. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, that had passed me by. I decided to remove the section for two reasons. Firstly, sources are a nightmare because, although there are plenty of examples of "The best 200 Twitter Apps" and such, there is no-one out there who wants to actually discuss the existence of such things in a reliable source. Secondly, the section didn't really stand on its own except as a build-up to the main article on the subject. At first, that guiltily felt like an easy way out, but I now reckon it's for the best. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems fair enough. I won't support right now because of SandyGeorgia's comment below, but I may give it a more thorough review later. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an article that is not fully cited, has MoS issues, and has ce issues apparent to "breeze through its Good article nomination with no problems raised" is not a good thing. Please review WP:DASH, the article is not fully cited, I found a ce error in the first paragraph I read, and "When asked about how he was going to use the additional investment funds in an interview, Williams said:", did he really plan to use the funds in an interview? How? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you define "ce" please? And give any further examples of specific areas that need more citations? Thank you. Hopefully I've cleared up the investment funds comment, I can understand how that was misleading. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a huge amount of MOS cleanup: [2] (I did not rewrite that paragraph). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Support}}I love twitter--75.60.27.102 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'm thankful for your support, it's not a question of liking Twitter but of considering the article of high quality. Apologies if that's what you meant, but I wanted to make sure you understood the system Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an independent copy-edit. Here are a few random examples of why the whole text needs scrutiny, technically:
- Opening: "Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that enables its users to send and read other users' updates known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters, displayed on the user's profile page and delivered to other users who have subscribed to them (known as followers)".—More comfortable with a comma after "updates"? "Them" could back-refer to any preceding plural (I see four possibilities). "known as followers" might be better adjacent to its referent (... other users—known as "followers"—who have subscribed to those posts).
"allow anybody to access them"; or "allow open access."? See what you think.
use ... using. Why not remove "to use"?
Remove "extensive" ... I mean, how extensive is "wordlwide"? "in that the site" -->"because"?
Another "using ... users"; please audit throughout for such repetitions.
"(after Facebook and ...)".
Are they annual growth rates at the end of the lead? There are months hanging around. Tony (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the suggested changes, and cleaned up some other over-uses of "user" and "using". However, I left the part saying "them" in the lead, as I believe it is now fairly obvious that the tweets are the subject:

"Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters, displayed on the author's profile page and delivered to other users - known as followers - who have subscribed to them."

I've also requested some copyedit input from related WikiProjects. Thank you very much for the feedback. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg asked my project. We are unfortunately probably going to be unable to assist much, but I will personally give it a good look next week (I am busy this week). Computerjoe 's talk 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
What makes the following reliable sources?
Most of your authors are listed last name first, but a few are listed first name first, should make sure they are standardized.
Current ref 43 (Dorsey, Jack) needs a publisher
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TechCrunch is a reliable source. It's worth hundreds of thousands and is the primary blog of Web 2.0. Also, Compete take data and analyse; this is reliable too imo. Computerjoe 's talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters are using their information here [3], Forbes here [4], the Wall Street Journal describes TechCrunch's founder as a 'a power broker' due to the site and the San Francisco Chronice calls him 'Mr. Web 2.0'; TechCrunch has no fewer than 3410 Google News hits in the past month alone [5]. In my opinion, this demonstrates how they are treated as a reliable source. I am really tired of people treating blogs as automatically unreliable; TechCrunch is probably more reliable and has a bigger circulation than many newspapers! Computerjoe 's talk 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Compete, they're merely reporting their observations. Like how Alexa would. Compete.com has 114 GNews hits in the past month [6]. Computerjoe 's talk 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.