User:Msacco32

Review of article
Good start on this. You will see you will see some articles that have a 'future' section, but you can't just say what the future will be, you can only say what some organizations think the future will be. This is an important distinction to keep the article neutral according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Another option for a title of this section might be "trends."

You have a similar problem in the second sentence of the hybrid newspaper section. You can't say what the future will bring. Again you can say what some people think the future will bring, other people probably think something different and that's key to providing a Neutral Point of View Five pillars. Also, I don't see why you would cut out the example that was in the original article.

Overall your sources look good, but keep your writing encyclopedic.

Erickaakcire (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Response to Review
Thanks a lot for the help on the issue of talking about the future of online newspapers, I was unsure how I could incorporate this information into my article. I will make sure in my revision to create another topic entitled "trends", or along those lines, or may remove some of the information entirely since I am attempting to remain neutral and follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks so much for the help.

~

3 Potential Articles
 * 1) Procedural dramas are extremely common on American televisions. Many shows that fall into this genre have been extremely successful so it was surprising to me that this page was lacking a lot of info. I have a few articles from the NY Times and other news publications.
 * 2) The online newspaper page is lacking a lot of vital info. The hybrid newspaper section has a bare amount of information and can be added to greatly. I have found the most sources for this topic, many of which are academic articles and other scholarly works.
 * 3) Another type of TV genre that could be added to is the serial TV Drama page. This page could have its sources updated, and some of the information reorganized like the history section.

Option 1 and 2 look the best - assuming you listed them in order of your preference go forward with 1, but feel free to work on 2 if you prefer. You are welcome to move forward drafting the article. Erickaakcire (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)