Talk:Bomis/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: &mdash; Cirt (talk)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much,, feel free to take your time, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Request: Fate The infobox says (unsourced) that Bomis is defunct. However, I could not find any mention in the article of Bomis after 2005 (when Shell is CEO). When did the company stop trading and what was its ultimate fate? (liquidated? bankrupt? sold? dormant? inactive?) I guess there is at least one editor who can tell us without us paying for a business records search.

This is relevant, but not crucial, to the "broad coverage" good article criterion. Could add someone a sourced sentence on the fate of Bomis?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, added info from the Internet Archive, see diff. As you can see, I did extensive research from over one-hundred (100) sources, and there was no info in those sources on the company and its activities post the time period you mentioned, above. Thank you,, for your helpful suggestion, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. That pushes the coverage aspect of the article way above GA. Though, if someone has a Dun & Bradstreet report (other business search firms are available) and is willing to contribute the relevant facts without breaking their D&B contract or violating the shareholders' privacy, that would be even better. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm glad you feel this is now sufficient for GA quality. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Background section The history of Bomis is indeed much intertwined with that of Wikipedia and the life of JW. However, I feel that the background section, which contains significant amount of biographical material of JW, is probably in violation of WP:SUMMARY. I feel that there is no need to mention Jimmy's place of birth or even up to his PhD. Bearing in mind Jimmy has his own article, and that his childhood and education has no direct relevance to the Bomis project, I would suggest that much of this background section be deleted, and a brief description of JW's relationship with Davis and Shell's at the point of formation would probably suffice. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 08:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, per above recommendation by, I've gutted all info from the Background sect prior to the info on Wales' PhD track. Please see diff. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice improvement to readability and relevance. I would personally have cut the bio even further, going no further back than his hire to Chicago Options. Academic career details don't seem to have direct relevance to Bomis. With or without, I think it is ready for GA. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that there's still too much background, but that it's already an improvement. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, I've cut even more from that early Wales studies from the Background sect, see diff. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

2005 editing incident section The incident is arguably more about JW than Bomis, although the controversy that was whipped up was about Jimm's role in Bomis and how that was reflected in his WP biography (ie much more JW-centric than focussed on Bomis). However, today, the incident section takes up 265 words in his biography, which seems not too disproportionate to the length of bio of 4000 words. Yet, the editing incident section occupies 579 words, more both in word count and as a percentage of the Bomis article, which I feel is very much undue weight. I suggest that this be cut down to at least 20 percent below the length of the section in Jimmy's biography. If it were entirely up to me, I'd probably make that at least 50%. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 08:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, trimmed sect down significantly in size, per recommendation by, above. Please see diff. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written
 * a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) ** Major Point 1: History "founded in 1996 by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis. … as among the "Top 10 Wikipedia Moments"." ( not a concise summary of the History subsection )
 * 6) ** Major Point 1.1: Background "" ( not in the lead )
 * 7) ** Major Point 1.2: Foundation "founded in 1996 by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis. … The name was an acronym of Bitter Old Men in Suits.[8] The site focused on content geared for a male audience, including information on sporting activities, automobiles, and females." ( not a concise summary of the Foundation subsection )
 * 8) ** Major Point 1.3: Hosted content "It included "Bomis Babes", … successful after focusing on X-rated media." ( not a concise summary of the Hosted content subsection )
 * 9) ** Major Point 1.4: Nupedia and Wikipedia "Bomis is best known for having supported … and subsequently closed in 2003." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 10) ** Major Point 1.5: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees "The non-profit organization the Wikimedia Foundation was started … Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation." ( not a concise summary of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees subsection )
 * 11) ** Major Point 1.6: 2005 editing incident "In 2005, Wales edited Wikipedia … as among the "Top 10 Wikipedia Moments"." ( The subsection is offtopic. )
 * 12) ** Major Point 2: Aftermath "The Atlantic gave Bomis the nickname "Playboy of the Internet" … characterization of the services provided by Bomis." ( not a concise summary of the Aftermath subsection, it should be much shorter. )
 * 13) ** Major Point 3: Analysis "Academics and scholars … revenues by charging for premium content." ( not a concise summary of the Aftermath subsection, it should be much shorter. )
 * 14) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 15) ** Major Point 1: History "founded in 1996 by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis. … as among the "Top 10 Wikipedia Moments"." ( the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body )
 * 16) ** Major Point 1.1: Background "" ( the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body )
 * 17) ** Major Point 1.2: Foundation "founded in 1996 by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis. … The name was an acronym of Bitter Old Men in Suits.[8] The site focused on content geared for a male audience, including information on sporting activities, automobiles, and females." ( the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body )
 * 18) ** Major Point 1.3: Hosted content "It included "Bomis Babes", … successful after focusing on X-rated media." ( the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body )
 * 19) ** Major Point 1.4: Nupedia and Wikipedia "Bomis is best known for having supported … and subsequently closed in 2003." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 20) ** Major Point 1.5: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees "The non-profit organization the Wikimedia Foundation was started … Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation." ( the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body )
 * 21) ** Major Point 1.6: 2005 editing incident "In 2005, Wales edited Wikipedia … as among the "Top 10 Wikipedia Moments"." ( The subsection is offtopic. )
 * 22) ** Major Point 2: Aftermath "The Atlantic gave Bomis the nickname "Playboy of the Internet" … characterization of the services provided by Bomis." ( the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body, it should be much shorter. )
 * 23) ** Major Point 3: Analysis "Academics and scholars … revenues by charging for premium content." ( the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body, it should be much shorter. )
 * 24) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 25) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 26) *** Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?".
 * 27) *** Bomis (/ˈbɒmɨs/ to rhyme with "promise")[3] was a dot-com company founded in 1996 by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis.
 * 28) *** The first sentence should also mention it’s relation to Wikipedia, which is an important aspect of its notability.
 * 29) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 30) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 31) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 32) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 33) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 34) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 35) ** Check for Biographies: ✅
 * 36) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 37) Check for Biographies of living persons:  ✅
 * 38) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 39) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 40) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 41) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 42) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 43) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): ✅
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: ✅
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

None


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: Yes
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 7) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 8) * What else has the author published?:
 * 9) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 10) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):
 * 10) * I feel that the 2005 editing incident subsection should be removed. The relevant content should be adjusted in other subsections. The scope of a topic is defined by reliable sources. RS cited in this subsection have topics: "Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio", "Wikipedia's benevolent dictator", "Wikipedia founder edits himself", "The Encyclopedic Mind of Jimmy Wales", "Top 10 Wikipedia Moments - World Wide Wiki: Who Founded Wikipedia?", "Annals of Information: Know It All - Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?", etc. Hence the notability of this incident is within the scope of Wikipedia and its founder, rather than Bomis. The majority of this section is, I believe, offtopic.

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license) & (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  None
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  NA

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are :
 * The lead does not provide an accessible overview and does not give relative emphasis.
 * The 2005 editing incident subsection should be removed. (WP:OFFTOPIC)
 * 1a issue: "Bomis was placed into a position where it needed to let go the majority of its employees to continue operating as Wikipedia with its new not-for-profit status was not producing revenues for the company." (I’m not sure )

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. All the best, --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  11:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks very much for the above suggestions, will respond to them soon. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright,, I've gone through your recommendations point-by-point and modified the article accordingly. I added more to the WP:LEAD from areas you felt needed to be expanded upon, and trimmed content from the intro with respect to sections you thought should be reduced. With respect to the subsection you voiced concerns about, above, I removed a majority of its content. I also removed the content as a specific subsection itself. I then took relevant content and adjusted other subsections accordingly, as you recommended, above. Thanks very much for your helpful suggestions, the article looks better for it! Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)