Talk:Willamette Week
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
|
| PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week. | ||
| Start | This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article is rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | |
[edit] NPOV
This is a very thorough article, but reads like marketing material for the paper. It needs some work. -Pete 19:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also needs some further copyediting--italics, wikifying, and rewording here and there. Oh yeah, and the formatting's wonky. Katr67 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Start
To improve to B class: no trivia section, general clean-up to reach NPOV. Aboutmovies 07:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] To improve the article
Somebody anonymous just did a good job improving the article. Thanks, whoever! I'd like to suggest we take this a step further, as it's been tagged for some time, and is a fairly important article.
I believe a number of the items need to be deleted. I suggest the "Notable articles" section should be considered by the following criterion: is the Willamette Week's coverage notable? As opposed to, is the event notable? The best way to judge this is whether the Willamette Week's coverage of the issue was mentioned by other reliable sources. WW's role in the Goldschmidt story, for instance, was noted several times by the Oregonian and the Portland Tribune, and also earned the reporter a Pulitzer prize; so that one would clearly stay. But for most of the other stories, while their subject was notable enough to warrant coverage, are not necessarily notable as Willamette Week stories.
Any comments before we start whacking and trimming? The paper definitely merits a better article than this, so let's get this taken care of! -Pete (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- This page backs up many of the claims in the article; however, note the use of the word "we." This is probably a self-description submitted by Willamette Week. Any opinions on whether this qualifies as a reliable source, regarding the specific claims made? For a start, I'd say it is sufficient to establish that WW's owners also own the SF Reporter. (Which I also know to be true independently.) -Pete (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
