Talk:Face with Tears of Joy emoji/GA1

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

Reviewer: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) 22:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I'll be handling this review :) expect full comments in about a week. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead

 * pre-unicode pre-Unicode
 * Is it necessary to include all of the various names in boldface? Maybe the alternate names are something to put in the body, as a sidenote...
 * I don't think we can claim broad cultural variance with it has different names and meanings in different regions and cultures, but also The emoji is used in communication to portray joking and teasing on messaging platforms? Also, are emojis used outside of communication?

Development history

 * Is the "see also" necessary, or can we just link to emoji?
 * wasn't was not
 * due to the limited adoption of the product, it wasn't popular that seems tautological. Why wasn't it widely adopted?
 * what is the digital smiley movement?
 * the CEO of The Smiley Company. In 2001, The Smiley Company CEO of The Smiley Company. In 2001, The Smiley Company
 * developed and launched The Smiley Dictionary. The Dictionary provided a list developed and launched The Smiley Dictionary, which provided a list
 * including the "Face with Tears of Joy" emoji. was introduced not sure what's happening here
 * This along with other providers and online platforms taking similar routes with adoption of emoji keyboards, meant a boom in usage of emojis. rather clunky. Recommend This, along with other providers and online platforms taking similar routes regarding the adoption of emoji keyboards, created a boom in usage of emojis.

Cultural impact of emoji

 * I think this could be just called "Cultural impact"
 * up from 4% and 9% respectively, from up from 4% and 9% respectively in
 * The discrepancy between sources on frequency of usage needs to be a little clearer
 * Hearts emoji can be linked

Encoding of emoji

 * Like with "Cultural impact", I think this one can be shortened
 * Is the qualifier sentence necessary, or can we just use the table?

Sourcing
version review :D
 * source review
 * The final three sentences of the second paragraph of "Development history" are unsourced.
 * Alt 2015: J-Phone isn't the product, it's a company? Also, Uses cite web; it should probably be cite magazine. The source doesn't demonstrate direct relevancy to this specific emoji – if RSes don't require a history of emoji in general, then it may not belong here...
 * Coccoza 2015, use b: doesn't verify that Unicode its set in 2010.
 * McCurry 2016: These two sentences don't really justify use with this source; McCurry is really only used as a source for OR from looking at the original set of images.
 * Moschini 2016: Since the DOI link is open-access, I don't think a researchgate link is necessary. Can you tell me what quote verifies Since DoCoMo's i-Mode emoji set derived from a Japanese visual style commonly found in manga and anime, combined with kaomoji, they symbolise facial expressions?
 * Hutchins 2016: I don't think licensing.biz is reliable.
 * Golby 2017: I'm not sure I interpret the source as explicitly saying that the Dictionary was adopted at MSN? It doesn't mention a toolbar either... also, missing a URL access date.
 * TheSmileyDictionary: not nearly a strong or independent enough for its claims, and I can't quite fathom how it verifies "oldest known".
 * Nokia 2004: Missing date. Does a primary source justify due weight?
 * Feldman 2015: Doesn't verify content? Also, it'd be New York, not New York Magazine.
 * McHugh 2015,
 * use a: Doesn't verify that it was in October.
 * use b: Seems to be the Twitter Data team, not Twitter per se. Also, that 6.6 billion number applies only to Twitter, I believe.
 * Oxford Dictionaries Blog, use a: doesn't seem to verify content?
 * Cohen 2017: Inaccessible, AGF
 * @EmojiAwards 2017 and Robbins 2017: I'm not sure a primary source Broadway World piece that doesn't bother to follow through and a primary-source Twitter is enough to demonstrate a need for inclusion?
 * Broni 2021: is the Emojipedia blog a reliable source for facts?
 * Jones 2021: couldn't verify the text it supports
 * Porter 2021: Not sure this helps with verification?
 * Gallagher 2013: Not a strong enough source on its own, but could be supplemented with Jones 2021

Other

 * Broadness: ✅
 * Neutrality: ✅
 * Copyright: ✅
 * Images: ✅

Overall
So sorry about the delays, ! while the issues are rectified. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Soulbust, an update on progress? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'll be addressing your feedback but I'm not sure when I'll get around to it and so I'd like to withdraw the nom if possible. That being said, thank you for your feedback and notes. It is much appreciated and will undoubtedly come in handy! :-) Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging theleekycauldron, in case she didn't see this request for withdrawal. I'm happy to assist if that would be helpful. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)