Talk:Politico-media complex/GA1

GA review[edit]

I'll be doing your good article review.

There will be more comments to come, but for now, you need to create a separate "Bibliography" or "Notes" section. Look at the sections in Abraham Lincoln or Jackie Robinson for examples. In it, you put books that are used more than once, like Lindholm, Charles and John A. Hall. "Frank Capra meets John Doe: Anti-politics in American National Identity." Cinema and Nation. Eds. Mette Hjort and Scott Mackenzie. New York: Routledge, 2000. Then you do Lindholm, p. 42 or whatever in their place. The bare refs like http://www.middleeastevents.com/site/pres_dtls.asp?pid=7820 also need to be formatted. That will give you something to do for now. Reply here when you've finished. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better. The books need ISBNs, and most of the first 14 refs need author, publisher, access date, etc. If you have any questions, ask them here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the inofbox for Chomsky should be removed, and the lead replaced per WP:LEAD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my fault ... had some vague idea on 'Manufacturing Consent' but lost my own thread with kids bawling around me ... I would have reverted myself had it not already been done ...Lomcevak (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox removed and lead added. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, whichever members of the group who are watching this page could you comment here and indicate that you've seen this? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I (Liz) have seen this. That reference in the lead with the ISBN number is supposed to be a footnote number, right? Would you mind also looking at my comment below "Using templates"? I thought I had changed the format in a way consistent with the example articles that you referred us to... Ecr6 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use templates if you want, although you don't have to. The books in the "References" section still need ISBNs, and a bunch of the refs in the "Notes" section need to be expanded. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget about page numbers when books are used (ex. the first ref, Bliss 1991, seems like a book but cites no page numbers). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Talk:Polyethnicity#More_GA_comments to see kind of how I'd like this review to proceed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I may not have a lot of time after this weekend, so I'll try and give you guys something to do.

Make sure you have access dates, and anything else needed for the refs. Look at Template:Cite web and Template:Cite book to see the kinds of things you can include in each ref. It doesn't have to be everything possible, but do a bunch.

All the citation needed problems need to be fixed.

Don't start with "While the term politico-media complex (PMC) has not yet been defined in any dictionaries, a working definition can be derived from its emergence and use in contemporary political discourse." Start with what it is, and talk about definition problems later.

The first section after the lead should explain what PMC is, not just jump into "Print" or whatever.

Statements like "Newspapers and magazines do have a back and forth between readers and journalists. Most studies show that the print media are more likely to reinforce existing political attitudes of the masses than change them." help the reader understand how print media relates to PMC. Right now, it jumps into changes in the print media, then explains PMC stuff later. Orient the reader with PMC info, then go into more detail. Make sure this is done in every section.

Don't be afraid to remove stuff. It's more important that this article be all about PMC than have tons of loosely related media info.

Looking at the "Asia" section. It doesn't seem to be directly related to PMC, it just seems to be what you think is important their media. This may be original research, which is not allowed, and will sink this nomination.

So, look very closely at references that aren't specifically talking about PMC, and think about removing them and their associated text. This will go a lot faster for you and me if you can trim this down to stuff specifically about PMC.

I recommend putting 10+ person hours into this. Then give it a good copyedit, where different students go over the other student's parts and make sure the writing is good. Then hopefully it will be close, and I can give you more detailed comments. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add some comments here regarding any progress. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and tried to work on the lead, I started a new section in the discussion about it, since it has a couple of issues. I also went through my section (radio) and checked to make sure everything relates to the PMC. I think everything is, but if anything is irrelevant, just let me know. ColleenHelen (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to fail this Good Article nomination. It still has citation needed tags, original research issues, and prose issues. I will say the radio part is really good, and if you read this Piotrus, you might consider giving that student a higher grade. If the whole article was that good, there would mostly just be some minor prose issues to deal with. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment, although there is still a little time (almost two days, and I could grant an extension till the end of the weekend) for the editors to improve that article (btw, isn't the article missing a Failed GA template?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here are some more detail comments from my talk page. "I'm going out of town tomorrow, and probably will be away from keyboard until early next week. Also, some of the issues are pretty big for a GA newbie to try and fix. The newspapers part is mostly off-topic, and would require a lot of work. Radio is pretty good. Film is in-between. It's got a couple citation needed templates on important statements, and goes into too much detail on Frank Capra but it's fixable. The TV section is about TV and American politics, but not really about the PMC. It then gives four big paragraphs just to Rajagopal. The internet part is also too US and Presidential campaigns centric, and not about the PMC in general. The problem is it's a lot of rewriting, not fixing what's there. They could probably fix everything in a weekend, since a group of 4 could theoretically write a pretty big GA from scratch in a weekend, but I won't be around. Not sure what you want to do." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be reviewing the changes early next week. If the group members want to take a challenge and try to rewrite the article (off topic parts can be reused for extra credit), I will be able to review it then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Piotr. We're on top of it. Ecr6 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have re-worded the lead a bit and found a citation for it that required me to add that the politico-media complex is also referred to as the political-media complex. The source for the intro is consistent with the definition we were using and have seen elsewhere. I have also cut out a bunch of information in the "Anti-politics in film" section that was definitely unnecessary. I might work on it some more... I found some more information to make the section of print media more relevant, as well. I believe I have found the page numbers for the citations in my section that were missing them. Partners, for those citations still without page numbers and access dates, etc. for web sources, can you please add them as soon as possible? Ecr6 (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went over the print media section and made a couple big organizational changes that I hope make it clearer and flow better. Other than that I added some information to make it more related to the PMC and overall edited the prose. I also looked at the lead, and I think the changes Liz made make it significantly better. I'm going to add a little bit to the pre-electronic section as well.ColleenHelen (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]