Talk:The Vancouver Voice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
The Vancouver Voice 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 28, 2007

[edit] GA

  • not there yet: only two sources, one of which is run by the entity and is a myspace page which does not meet the guidelines for Wikipedia:Independent sources. Also, a lot of rather short sentences, citations go after the punctuation, in-line citations should be moved to footnotes to match rest of the article, and there should not be any WP:COI editing. It is a good start, good layout. Aboutmovies 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed: Notes needed for improvement

I have had to fail this article based on the criteria found at WP:WIAGA. The following fixes are needed:

  • Well under the "broadness" requirement for a Good Article. While not a work of fiction, one aspect of WP:FICT applies here; the article is almost entirely a summary of the content of the newspaper. There is little besides that. What the article needs to flesh it out is:
    • Critical review in other sources
    • Awards won or citations received
    • Readership figures, revenue, statistics, something like that.
      • comment: The paper has only been out for 7 months. enough said there. VanTucky 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead is inadequately short. See WP:LEAD for more information. However, given the inadequate state of the article, the article needs expansion first before the lead is expanded as well.
  • Referencing is a major problem:
    • Mix of external links and ref tags. All references should be ref tagged.
    • Full bibliographic information needed for EACH reference (author if availible, title, publication info, access date for URLs, etc.). Consider using citation templates found at WP:CITET, though not required they CAN help organize this information.
    • While we're on it, there is only ONE reliable source, the Oregonian article. The other two references are both self-published: A blog and a myspace page. See WP:RS for more information on which sources should and should not be referenced. This article needs multiple references for both breadth and neutrality.
      • comment: it seems to me that it is okay to use the myspace as a reference for the facts regarding what the staff/owners say on it, as well as cover stories considering it has an image archive of all the cover stories mentioned. VanTucky 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Likewise, external links consists of:
    • A spam link
      • comment: Free Will is part of the content and does not have its own stub, therefore I included it. VanTucky 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • A myspace page.
If it isn't a reliable source, it also shouldn't be considered for an external link. See WP:EL for more information.
  • This entire paragraph is unreferenced, original research, and filled with POV problems: "Notable distinctions in content and objective include a general lack of investigative stories, local or national news, and political reporting. "Straight" news is more the target of the daily newspaper The Columbian. There is also an absence of personal and classified advertising (which reflects the objection some residents of the generally more conservative community of voters have with ads for call girls found in other papers, see Clark County). Other regular features include..."

As a whole, this article has a LONG way to go before it is a GA. I have given a long list of places to start in improving it. Please feel free to renominate it at WP:GAC when the article is up to standard. If you feel this review was handled incorrectly, please ask for remediation at WP:GA/R. If you have any questions, please drop a line at my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)