Wikipedia:Peer review/Journalspace/archive1

Journalspace
Looking for comments. Still needs a bit of detail and an image for the infobox. --Andy 00:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It needs details galore. There's only one prose sentence and it gives next to no information. [I]t...has always been rich in features." What are these features? I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but this does not belong at peer review which "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." This is not a high quality anything, it has not undergone extensive work and it is a sub-stub with no content but some lists; about as far from a featured article as can be. I'm not even sure from the present article if it is sufficient to meet our inclusion criteria for web based subjects. I suggest looking at an article on a similar subject for ideas on how to start writing the article. You might get some useful ideas, for instance, from Gmail which is listed as a good article.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not harsh. I wasn't really sure what stage it should be before peer review.  Mostly I wanted comments before I proceeded further.  I wasn't sure if I went too far with the features and details that it might be interpreted as just a spam article and killed off.--Andy 05:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... already considered for deletion. Although I was a bit surprised journalspace didn't have an entry, I can see it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Other than some notable users and that it gets 30-40 million hits per day according to [alexa's] stats, it is otherwise not particularly notable. Oh well. --Andy 12:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)