Talk:Node Magazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Node Magazine was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

GA Status[edit]

This article has been assessed as a Fail.

The assessment is as follows :

1) The article is far too short. Its coverage needs to be expanded considerably. For instance, in the introduction it is claimed that it is "a hypertext version of the novel" but no further details of the novel are given. Considering the magazine is about the "Spook Country universe" the details linking the novel and the magazine need to be considerably expanded.

2) Two further sections of the article need to be written i) – a background section on the novel and a basic outline of the plot. I understand that the article is about Node magazine and not the novel but since the magazine is about the novel and its "universe", it's only sensible to provide a basic coverage of the novel. GA Criteria requires completeness in an article's coverage. ii) The magazine is quoted as being a "mini-wikipedia", examples needs to be given, quoted and referenced.

3) All references must be in accordance with WP:CITET

4) Wikipedia articles must be neutral in tone. The quotes sound too gushing "What the unknown Node-maestro has done is poles apart,,,,,,I believe, to a new kind of critical commentary on texts."

Tone down the adulatory language and find, quote and reference adverse criticism of the magazine in order to provide a balanced, critical perspective.

The article needs a lot of work before it can be re-nominated.

Tovojolo 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Finished reviewing the article. I hope you are successful once you have have re-written and expanded the article.

Tovojolo 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


@ Tovojolo & Skoromesh

The criteria for "Good Article" status may or may not be valid. They certainly seem to be complicated.

Perhaps an article should actually be online for at least a month or two, before it is submitted for such an award ?

"For instance, in the introduction it is claimed that it is "a hypertext version of the novel" but no further details of the novel are given."

Why re-invent the wheel, when there is already a Wikipedia page for Spook Country ?

"Tone down the adulatory language and find, quote and reference adverse criticism of the magazine in order to provide a balanced, critical perspective."

Supposing, there simply is no serious adverse critical reaction at the moment ?

Are you suggesting that, say, the sarcastic comments, from pseudo-anonymous posters on the official William Gibson books discussion forum, written before the actual node.tumblr.com hypertext assisted analysis of the novel was started, should somehow be given equal weight to the mainstream media published comments of John Sutherland an Emeritus Professor of English holding academic posts in both the UK and the USA or the comments of the author William Gibson himself ?

Suggestion for another external reference:

"Spook Country" hyperlink cloud annotations

This is a version of the text annotations in node.tumblr.com with extra hyperlink annotations, without repeating the graphical images, with extra independent hyperlink annotations, re-ordered into chapter sequence order, as one medium / large blog archive file.

MemeticSynthesis 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MS, I've added the link. Are you the author? Skomorokh incite 17:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)