Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Million Dollar Homepage/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC) [1].

The Million Dollar Homepage

edit
Notified: User talk:X-Editor, User talk:Pigsonthewing, WP:INET [2], WP:WEBSITES [3], June 2018 talk page

Review section

edit

FAR discussion was initiated by Jytdog back in 2018 but never finished due to that user being indefinitely blocked.

Their concerns of "absurdly promotional and detailed page" and " excessive quoting from the founders, the laundry list of media mentions - all this kind of stuff is classic PR, not even aiming for the mission of providing people with knowledge" do not seem to have been addressed.

There has been plenty of time to make improvements to the article. However, the talk page has been a ghost town since 2012, with Jytdog's post being the only one since then that wasn't a bot notification.

Page traffic is extremely low as well; only about 400 visits a day, and only eleven (mostly minor or bot) edits in the past 365 days. (In fact, two of the top three page editors are bots!) It's clear that this is just a 2009-vintage FAR that's just been gathering dust since.

I feel that I am not out of line by skipping step 1, as another editor did so in 2018 but never finished the job, and it is abundantly clear that their Step 1 attracted no attention.

  1. Lead: No major points of interest since 2009 are mentioned.
  2. Media attention: Lots of one-sentence paragraphs; no update on Tew since 2016?
  3. Survival: All one-sentence paragraphs; is there nothing newer on this?
  4. Pixel sales: Constant references to horribly outdated measures of site traffic such as the long defunct Digg.
  5. Sources:
    1. Almost all of the sources are from 2005 and 2009, suggesting a lack of breadth.
    2. Reference 48 is incomplete.
    3. Lots of self-reference to the website itself.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ten Pound Hammer: I would agree that currently, the article does not meet FA criteria as the article is very promotional sounding, with a huge section on media coverage alone. In fact, the article was very promotional sounding back when it was initially promoted to FA status, calling into question why it was promoted in the first place. A significant rewrite of the article to remove the promotional stuff and some updating of the article would be needed to bring this to FA status. X-Editor (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jytdog had a particular bug-a-boo about what he viewed as conflict of interest, but it is fallacy to think we can't have FAs about business ventures-- even successful ones. It is also fallacy to think we can't have FAs about historical ventures; if there is new information that needs to be incorporated, please bring forward the sources.
  • Page views on Wikipedia have nothing to do with WP:WIAFA.
  • If an article meets notability, it is acceptable to quote within policy from their website; please identify anything inappropriate.
  • I have removed the laundry list of media mentions, and reorganized the sections to include Reception and Legacy.
  • There are no more one-sentence paras, after that reorganization.
  • Measure of website traffic then are still relevant to information about that time period.

Please be specific about any puffery or other issues that still attention (I have only made a first pass), as these complaints (so far) are fixable and ... too vague. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two "see also" items should probably be worked in to the article somewhere:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC) The "Copycat websites emerged." sentence seems a bit out of place where it currently is in the lede. Maybe move it somewhere else more appropriate? X-Editor (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is in the wrong paragraph. Unless someone else gets to it first, I will get it when next not on iPad; unhappy to have killed my laptop by spilling coffee on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Which paragraph do you want it in? Nvm, I moved it myself. Do you approve of where I moved it? X-Editor (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, my computer is out for repair for at least a week, thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Thanks! Once you get your computer back, I would suggest fixing the references and archiving the dead urls in the refs. Also, how do you link to an author in a reference? X-Editor (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to archive dead URLs ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Use the wayback machine. X-Editor (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Old dog, new tricks, and not something I intend to do while my computer is away for repair. @X-Editor and TenPoundHammer:, I have done all I can do, and checked Google scholar, where I found sources that all led back to Gounds, Wall Street Journal, and reported nothing new. What’s next here? Close without FAR, or move to FARC, or are theres still issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there truly is nothing new to report in the intervening years, then that does have me questioning the completeness of the article, and whether this is still sufficient for FA status if there truly is nothing else to say about it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer if there is nothing we haven’t covered, then the article meets WP:WIAFA 1b, comprehensive, so I am not following your logic. 20:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what I was trying to say there. If it's as complete as we can get, then I think it should be satisfactory to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer and X-editor where are we? Is this a close without farc, or move to farc for further review and ebaluation? A declaration at the two-week mark is useful ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer and X-Editor:, faulty ping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I'm not to familiar with reviewing featured articles, so I'll let Ten Pound Hammer decide. X-Editor (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer:@SandyGeorgia: Have you checked to see how many of the sources are dead links? Most of the sources are pretty old. X-Editor (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The external links checker tool does not turn up any dead sources, and I am not versed in archiving links (now do I intend to learn to do that :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

Concerns raised include breadth of sourcing and outdatedness Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage/archive1&oldid=1013095296"