Wikipedia:Peer review/LiveJournal/archive1

LiveJournal
I'd like to see this made into an FA level canidate. What suggestions can be offered? Thanks! - rootology (T) 17:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Notable users and journals are, well... Not. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair use images need rationales, sections with NPOV issues need to be addressed. -- light darkness (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which first needs to be understood by editors in that it doesn't mean equal time to varying view points. The neutrality isn't so much disputed in some places as the purpose of that policy is misunderstood.--Crossmr 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which sections do you guys think need the most NPOV work? I'd like to sandbox it. rootology (T) 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the neutrality is currently okay. The problem is some individuals who feel that neutrality means anyone with an axe can grind can put their complaint about LJ on that page (I've noticed this trend on several articles). When you remove it citing policy, they slap a NPOV tag on it. I'd have to go through the specifics, but I believe everything that is in there is properly cited and as such its neutral as it can be per WP:NPOV.--Crossmr 23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks... a lot of those will need to get cut down to people who are likely known outside of Internet/LJ circles. Paul Dini, Billy Corgan, Warren Ellis, Jhonen Vasquez, Caitlyn Kiernen... many of the others are fluff. rootology (T) 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)