Talk:SourceFed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:SourceFed/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Samwalton9 (talk · contribs) 13:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to review this GAN, and will begin going through the article now. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI some of my questions are rhetorical and are meant as a prompt to change something about the article that isn't easy to understand.

Lead[edit]

  • The lead should summarise the key points of the entire article, so two paragraphs covering the content and reception would be good to add.
  • "SourceFed's channel" - Youtube channel? TV channel? Specify what is meant by channel.
  • "The hosts are YouTube bloggers who are used like reporters, but only exclusive on the Internet and not on television or on radio." - I don't really understand this sentence, what do you mean by "only exclusive on the internet"? This should be clarified.

History[edit]

Inception[edit]

  • The inception section has a very long quote, try to trim it down or more simply paraphrase what was said.
  • "It became defunct shortly afterwards" - The blog or the YouTube channel? This could also do with a source.
  • "DeFranco negotiated for less funding, in return to have creative control over the channel's content." - Could do with explaining how/why this works.
  • Could you find a secondary source or two for the second paragraph?
  • Is Newantics a reliable source?
  • Wordpress blogs are not a reliable source and so should be removed.
  • The beginning of the third paragraph seems to repeat the end of the second paragraph?
  • Is the Trinitonian a reliable source?
  • Who is James Haffner and why does he need to be mentioned specifically?
  • What is an 'original channel'? It's said a few times in the paragraph but I'm not sure what that actually means.
  • There's a bit of WP:CITECLUTTER at the end of the paragraph, 3-4 sources for one sentence is unnecessary and can be trimmed down to one reliable source. There's actually quite a few good sources there which might be able to be redistributed around the section.

Addition of content[edit]

  • Might be better to word it as saying 'Curb Cash ended' rather than 'they all still run apart from curb cash'.
  • Needs independent sources, I don't think it's a necessary paragraph without one.

Acquisition by Revision3[edit]

  • What's an SVP?

Events[edit]

2012 Maxim Hot 100[edit]
  • This paragraph is not supported by any reliable independent sources. If none covered it then it should be removed as a non-notable event.
VidCon[edit]
  • Conducting backstage interviews can be left out of this paragraph unless mentioned by any independent source.
  • Same as above for the world record breaking; was this recorded by any official organisation? Currently it is just a claim by Defranco.
  • Was sponsoring VidCon mentioned by any independent source? Tempted to keep this here regardless but would be better with one.
2012 Electon Hub[edit]
  • This could do with more independent reliable sources too, the Streamy awards are notable so it would surprise me if there wasn't any coverage.

I'll carry this on later or tomorrow, Samwalton9 (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

News[edit]

  • Is Hungry Horse News a reliable source?
  • What does "cross-pollinates" mean? Might be better to word this differently. On that note, since this sentence is a primary source I don't think it's worth keeping.
  • I would either find an independent source for George Watsky's music being used or leave it out.
  • I dont think that noting the dates DeFranco was on the show is worth mentioning.
  • There's no source for the Comment Commentary sentence.
  • That the show was covered on Huffington Post isn't worth talking about, and the article most likely wasn't written by an official member of staff anyway.
  • That some posts weren't uploaded until the following day is trivial and unsourced so I'd remove it unless it was covered by news articles which I doubt.
  • The sentences about Gather posting the videos is also irrelevant as they appear to have simply been reposted by a user there.
  • 'White Walls' is also trivial, I'd remove that sentence.

Hosts[edit]

Other shows[edit]

  • This can be trimmed down, if a show doesn't have reliable independent source coverage, remove it. I'll come back to this section when it's been reduced.

Reception[edit]

  • The third source is more than enough for the first sentence, no need for the other two.
  • Where is the source for the Deadline Hollywood tracking statistic?
  • That they uploaded a video in response to the reception isn't really relevant here I don't think.
  • Is onlinevideo.net a reliable website?
  • Is paidcontent.org a reliable website?
  • Being covered in articles isn't really a measure of reception to the website/show, I'd consider removing that sentence.
  • Long quote at the end - Try to summarise what was said rather than using a long quote.
  • The awards and nominations table could be broken down into plain text to include in the section, a table isn't really necessary for 3 nominations and an award in the same event.

Image Use[edit]

  • Files all on commons so fine.

Since there's quite a lot of changes to make here, I'm going to fail the GA for now as I think it will need another full fresh review once these issues have been addressed. I'm happy to keep replying here and provide more advice :) Samwalton9 (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping back to let you know that tubefilter is not a reliable source. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

political bias[edit]

Reporter for the New York Times described SourceFed as a "conservative outlet". Should this political bias be noted in the article?

The conspiracy theory began with a video from the conservative outlet SourceFed that went viral this year, and quickly garnered headlines on conservative news sites like Breitbart and Infowars. - Donald Trump Pushes Debunked Theory That Google Suppressed Rival’s Bad News

--beefyt (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on SourceFed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SourceFed&oldid=1213317715"