Talk:Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Reviewed version: April 8, 2008}

^{Reviewed version: January 25, 2008}

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.
Click [show] for further details

Business and economics Portal

This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.

rated as B-Class on the assessment scale

Mid

rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale

Internet Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-class on the class scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Wikipedia:Good Article nomination

The article is not about a major subject, but an article does not have to be about the big things in life to be a good article. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This article should be illustrated. In the [Wikipedia:What_is_a_good_article%3F|GA Criterea], it says that articles should be illustrated. --Dan Leveille^TALK 08:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review: 2008-01-24

Going through the Good Article Criteria.

Instead of using a parenthetical statement, consider either adding an explanatory clause or another sentence. For example, instead of leading affiliate networks like Commission Junction and BeFree (both now companies under the flagship of ValueClick publicly traded symbol: VCLK, but independent companies at that time) consider leading affiliate networks like Commission Junction and BeFree... as of January 2008, both Commission Junction and BeFree are companies under the flagship of ValueClick, but were independent companies at the time of the debate.
Slashes as a substitute for and or or should not be used. For example, affiliate/publisher should be affiliate or publisher or whatever makes sense in the context of the sentence.
Be consistent with uses of specialized terms and provide definitions. To solve the previous problem, pick either affiliate or publisher to use throughout the article and provide a definition of the term early on.

The first sentence in the article should provide a succinct definition of what the Code of Conduct is. I think, from what I read that an appropriate sentence would be something like: The Publisher Code of Conduct or Code of Conduct is a guideline for ethical online advertising. It was released by... Clearly, this should be altered to reflect whatever the truth is.
Text dumps are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please summarize the Code, rather than putting the whole thing in the article. Provide a link to the full text, perhaps in the external links section.
"History" and "The CoC over time" should be combined.
I just took out the "See also" section. The terms in it were previously linked in the article. If possible, incorporate anything you'd want to put in this section into the article body.

I'll continue this tomorrow, as sadly I can't put off work forever. Gimme danger (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and all your good suggestions. I reworked the whole article based on your comments and suggestions. Please have a look now and let me know what you think. I would also appreciate, if you would re-evaluate the article and give it a second chance. It may qualifies now as a GA. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I re-nominated the article. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Review of Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing)

Is it reasonably well written?

A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:

Pass or Fail:

The obvious thing about this article is that it is way too short. You mention the code, but you never say exactly what the code says. Plus, you don't really say what the effects of the code were, and why is was really notable. This article needs a lot of expansion before it can considered for GAN again. Noble Story (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)