Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Million Dollar Homepage


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:22, 24 February 2009.

The Million Dollar Homepage

 * Nominator(s): Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) (WP:CUP participant)

This has just been promoted at WP:GA. I don't think I can do much more to the article, so here it is. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I just passed this article's GA review, and was quite impressed with the overall quality of it... the prose is great, references are in all the right places, and it looks comprehensive. Therefore, unless I seriously missed something when I read it, I support this nomination. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20060110125900/www.stickermyhummer.com/faq.html deadlinked
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20060112094759/http://www.presentmecolor.com/ deadlinked
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 05:00 Feb 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. The above two links work fine when I click on them, perhaps the link checker was having problems. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=The_Million_Dollar_Homepage#view=0,1,1,1,1,1 no longer brings those two sites up, but it does say that requires registration (it doesn't) and for the past week has said that  deadinks (it doesn't). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, those didnt' come from the link checker tool, they came from me clicking on them direct to check the sourcing. (I always click through any links that I don't recognize the publisher on). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Are they working now for you though? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do now, didn't right before this. Odd. I hate my ISP at times....Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — Odd article subject, but well written and sourced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Complete and well-referenced. Reywas92 Talk  21:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I think you were looking at a version that had a very large chunk of it removed though. I added it back in; could you take a look and confirm you still support, please? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Still looks good. Reywas92 Talk  20:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Undoubtedly a good article, but I'd like to see work (or a good reply!) on the following points before supporting: Support. Physchim62 (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was it an advantage for Tew that the pound was strong against the dollar when he launched his website? Personally, I try to sell my services in strong currencies rather than weak ones: however, the pound's strength made Tew's adverts cheaper for his local market. Is there a way to put that into the article without WP:OR?
 * All we have on that is what he said: "I think US dollars are the closest thing we have to a universal currency on the internet, so it made more sense to do it in dollars. 'The Million Pound Homepage' just doesn't have the same ring to it! Also, given that the US has the largest online population in the world, more people will be able to relate to the concept than had I done it in British pounds. Plus, £1 GBP per pixel would probably be too expensive (would equate to around $1.80 US per pixel)." I added the bit about the larger US online population.
 * There is repeated material between the "Sales" and "Media attention" sections which jars a bit for this reader. Could you try to put the detailed information in one section only please?
 * The majority of the media stuff appears in the Media attention section. All the Sales section says is that after he sold $1,000 worth of pixels, he put out a press release that was picked up by the BBC and The Register. That attention brought more visitors who digged about it, bringing more visitors and more purchasers. Without that, it's hard to say how the visitors came to the site and how he managed to sell so much in such a short space of time. Maybe change "Media attention" to "Reception from the media"?
 * The estimate of Tew's net income is his own, according to the source: could this be made clear? My own, very rough, back-of-an-envelope calculation comes out as a figure slightly less than $650k net: not seriously wrong, but perhaps Tew was being a bit optimistic at the time as to how little he would have to pay the taxman.
 * "Tew's expected net income was $650,000–$700,000." -- I don't know how else to say it. Adding in yours or my calculations to say what it would be, would be WP:OR, I think. It also depends on how big his charitable donation is. Also, that would be a tax write-off so his taxable amount would be less.
 * Has this nomination been publicised at the relevant WikiProjects? I notice that you only added the project banners after the article got GA-status.
 * It has now.
 * Good luck, best wishes, and I look forward to seeing your replies! Physchim62 (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Let me know what you think about the "Sales"/"Media" sections. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting and your support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Wiltshire Constabulary's Hi-Tech Crime Unit was called to investigate the extortion and attack, who believed it originated in Russia" Should b were not was, and which of them "believed it originated in Russia"? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done the "was" --> "were" bit. The source from the BBC quotes Tew as "Their instinct is that this attack originates in Russia". Doesn't say whether he means the FBI, Wiltshire Constabulary, or both. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments (close to supporting): Support
 * The lead shows a peak Alexa rank, which doesn't seem to be referenced again in the body of the article. What is the source for the ranking, since it is uncited in the lead?
 * Added a WebCite archived reference for today's ranking. I added and referenced the 127 in the main prose.
 * The sentence beginning Tew appeared on the BBC and Sky News's… should be split. The first part is about what Tew did, while the second part is about what The Times did. I can't see a compelling reason for these two thoughts to be joined.
 * I've removed that sentence per Physchim62 above.
 * Was there any media reaction to Tew's deferment of his studies? Any further word on whether his studies have begun?
 * I'd have BLP concerns if we went more into Tew's biography. At the moment, the article seems OK, but this is a living person who is notable for just one single thing, we shouldn't be delving into the rest of his life. Physchim62 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. The guy did keep a blog running until September 06. University would have started shortly after that, but he made no reference to it. Instead he was advertising for a web developer, and saying he had secret plans for "Something that could be REALLY big. Much bigger than the Million Dollar Homepage." I think by then his 15 minutes of fame had ran out!
 * I can see that, but I was wondering if there had been any reaction since the funding of his education was his stated reason for starting the website. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WSJ said it was an "ironic turn of events", otherwise it was barely touched on. They were more interested in reporting the auction and DDOS attack. Thank you for the support! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The infobox status for the website says "inactive", which is not necessarily the case; the website is up and running even though sales have ended.
 * Changed to "active"
 * I'm curious about the $1,000 price tag on the press release. Do sources say anything about who this was paid to (like a PR firm or something)? Because anyone can write a press release; it's the getting-someone-to-read-it part that's hard.
 * Nope, nothing.
 * Other than my comments above, everything else looks good. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Belhalla, I fixed your second point - that bothered me too. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Belhalla, I fixed your second point - that bothered me too. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting and your support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Support with additional fixes that have been made. Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Comments (leaning toward support)
 * I agree with the reviewer above - it really doesn't make sense that he'd want to sell in dollars when the pound was strong against the dollar. Do we know who he was marketing to?
 * He was marketing to the UK and US, but as I quoted above, he thought the US had a larger online community so that was one other reason why he sold in $; Americans might not relate if it were in pounds. Ref added anyway.


 * Is there any information about how the site was marketed initially? How did the first few advertisers know about the opportunity?
 * Done I added a Wall Street Journal ref for both. Friends, family, and friends-of-friends purchased the first few blocks. Quite a few of the refs say he originally relied planned on word-of-mouth advertising.


 * Need a citation for By New Year's Eve, Tew reported that the site was being visited by 25,000 unique visitors every hour, and that 999,000 of the 1,000,000 pixels had been sold.
 * Done -- WSJ again


 * There is a good number of citations sourced to the website itself - is there any way to get that information from somewhere else?
 * I'll look, but I suspect that a lot of information in the press came from the site anyway
 * It's actually not that many. The site's FAQ is referenced, the T&C is referenced, and his blog page which is used to cite quotes or minutiae info that press wouldn't cover. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Was it really necessary to site eBay - did the auction not get covered in the papers?
 * It did, and I've added a couple of refs -- one for the final amount and another for the purchaser. I've left the ebay cite since it's not doing any real harm.

Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting and your support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose (Normally I would say "Comments", but this FAC could use a little colour.) In several places, the prose is clumsy or wordy, the article is unencyclopedic, the point of view is not the neutral one, and the sources are weak. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article and should be written with that in mind.
 * Prose. Tony1 would likely have ripped the prose to shreds. With my less keen eye, I can only raise a few examples: "a then 21-year-old student", "as he was about to begin", "After rejecting a number of ideas, Tew thought he might be able to", "After being down for a week", "the owner was selling them for a penny, and similar to The Million Dollar Homepage, they were available in 10×10 blocks". Suggesion 1: use the simple past tense more; it is very encyclopedic and very easy to read. Suggestion 2: be concise.
 * Unencyclopedic point of view. This is partly a prose issue. However, the "Development" section in particular is written from an insider perspective: the story is told from Tew's point of view. The worst example is probably "Tew chose to sell the pixels in dollars because he felt dollars were the universal currency on the internet". Encyclopedia articles don't normally describe how the subject felt, unless this has been extensively analysed by secondary sources. (Note, I am not simply objecting to the word "felt": "Tew chose" already frames the sentence in an unencyclopedic way.)
 * Sources. Related to the above, there's a touch too much reliance on primary sources here, telling Tew's story. "In October, the site received more press attention. The Times soon purchased a 14×2 block for $2,800.[17] The extra publicity brought even more visitors to the website. On 6 October, Tew reported the site received 65,000 unique visitors; eleven days later the number had increased to 100,000 unique visitors. On 26 October, exactly two months after the Million Dollar Homepage launched, over 500,900 pixels had been sold to 1,400 customers." This material, judging by the citations, is sourced entirely to Tew. To its credit it says "Tew reported" in respect of one of the statistics. However, the analysis ("more press attention", "soon", "even more") is unsourced.
 * Very nice article, but not yet an FA. Geometry guy 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC) (Please reply to my comments below: I hope it will be easy enough to state which comment you are replying too. Splitting a review just creates a mess.)


 * I've addressed the prose issues identified. I will ask around for a copyeditor also. Hopefully the article focuses more on the website and less on Tew. There are still some mentions of him, but I believe he is not the main subject now. I have changed up the tense wherever possible, especially in the Development and Sales sections.
 * I have removed the first three sentences you quoted, but since it does say "Tew reported", I've left the remainder in. This minutiae is not likely to have been reported in news articles, and wasn't, but it's still important in the telling of the popularity. As it got more visitors, more people bought space. As sales increased, it got more visitors. I don't believe there are too many primary sources. Of the 57 refs, only 3 are now from the site itself, which are only used to source direct quotes from Tew.
 * Thanks for taking a look. Perhaps you'll be inclined to strike the oppose? :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony1 has gone over the prose. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So has Mattisse: Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's looking much better. I've made a couple of copyedits. I still don't like:
 * "He was about to begin a three-year Business Management course at the University of Nottingham, but knew from his brother's experience that he would be burdened with a £30,000 student loan that could take years to repay." Tew perspective and "would be burdened" is not very accurate or encyclopedic. Also, it isn't what the source says: the figure quoted is his brothers' student debt, with no mention of the proportion of student loan. 18:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "After rejecting a number of ideas...". "a number of" is vague - presumably this is according to Tew?
 * "the minimum purchase amount" is a bit wordy.
 * "An online music website..." Was this the first sale? The sentence structure doesn't make it clear. You could use a colon, or a conjunction like "when".
 * "becoming one of the most Digged links in that week" Can you rephrase to avoid the internet slang?
 * As always when reviewing, I do not insist I am right, so trust your own judgement. Geometry guy 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed "burdened" and the #30,000
 * Removed the vagueness
 * I left "the minimum purchase amount" and "becoming one of the most Digged links in that week". Couldn't think of a way to reword either
 * Clarified that the music site was the first purchaser. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking: an FA is not perfect after all :) Keep thinking on those two issues! (How about "minimum price"?) Geometry guy 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't need the knockoff sites. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I think that it adds a lot to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Image review as follows: Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:The Million Dollar Homepage logo.png is up for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Million Dollar Homepage logo.png.
 * File:The Million Dollar Homepage.png: I have reduced the size and rewrote the rationale (we need not the full 1,000 by 1,000 to convey the sense of wonder) for this image. The reduced image should be sufficient for fair-use.
 * I've removed the logo. Thanks for fixing the other image. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One fair-use image in article with suitable rationale. No image concerns.  Jappalang (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Perhaps it is just me, but I am wondering why you have so many quotes from Tew, as to me he does not have a unique or particularly interesting way of describing the situation. And I find so many quotes distracting to read.
 * This quote could easily be reworded without quotes: "I thought it might go for a higher amount because of all the attention", Tew commented, "but it's still a good result".
 * The last long quote doesn't really seem to do with the website as much as Tew's personal life, the one that begins:  "This will give me time to organise my life, consolidate my financial position (eg. pay the taxman!) and explore some of the new opportunities that have presented themselves...."

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thanks for looking! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Thanks for that! Those quotes have bothered me. I have edited the page some in the past and appreciate the directness of your presentation. Good job! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting and your support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I looked over the article again, made minor tweaks to the lead, but saw no FA issues. Geometry guy 22:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting and your support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.