Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Facebook

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FA soon. I'm looking specifically for copyediting help and suggestions on what content to keep or remove. I've put a lot of work into this article. The article originally looked like this, so it's come a long way since then. Gary King (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • What makes http://www.physorg.com/ a reliable source?
  • http://mashable.com/2007/05/24/facebook-video-launches/ likewise (current ref 62)
  • The only other concern would be the number of references to the site itself. I didn't honestly have time to double check the usage of each one to make sure that it was properly used, but make sure that it's all non controversial information sourced to the site itself, and not any opinions. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
References replaced. Gary King (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Could any more be added on the technology behind the site? The Facebook website has a little info on this. Epbr123 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The previous peer review had comments from six different users - have they been contacted to see what they think of the current version? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has not changed much since they reviewed it. This current peer review is for copyediting issues before going through FAC, but I suppose I will contact the previous reviewers to see what they think. Gary King (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I made two suggestions for improvement in the last review. Both have been addressed. Specifically, I felt that before the balance between economic/political issues and descriptions of the application favoured the former. I think the balance now is just about right. In fact, treatment of the background is the harder matter to research and the current article is outstanding in showing depth to these matters. My second concern was that coverage of privacy issues seemed too dominant. This too has been addressed, imo. As other reviewers noted, the main thing was to expand description of the user interface, since this is what Facebook means to most readers. Really we were all saying the same thing. Coverage of this has been expanded, and sufficiently to satisfy me at least. Further expansion (and perhaps modification) is likely with a topic covering a major current web-site. This entry will be continuously changing, at what point do we accept it is of a featurable standard. I think it is essentially there already. The nomination process will provide precisely the feedback needed for any further improvements. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs) It has certainly come a long way and it is definitely much improved! For a few things, I noted:

  • Lead looks good, though the last paragraph isn't summarizing anything in the article but introducing new content. Why not add a reception section that has that sourced content, and expand a bit. Also, make sure the lead has some summary statement about the controversies.
    • I'd rather not want a whole section dedicated to statistics of the site's popularity. The paragraph in the lead summarizes this nicely, and then gets it out of the way. Gary King (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It isn't just statistics of popular. Reception is a common section and can also include reviewer commentary, and the controversy section could be a subsection under it. Collectonian (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Are websites even normally reviewed? Gary King (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Not as extensively as books, movies, et all, but there are some reviews for most big sites, usually in trade publications and other web magazines/sites. Collectonian (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Similar to GameFAQs, I have added a statement with reviews in the lead. Gary King (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a lot of unnecessary images for decoration rather than to clarify things. Mark Zuckerberg has his own article, so why have his picture here? What he looks like is irrelevant to the Facebook website. Why is the former banner relevant when there isn't an analysis of the changes in appearance? Why a picture of the headquarters if nothing else in the article mentions it (could the history section be expanded to note the move to those headquarters, or was it always there?).
    • Removed the images. You are right on all counts. Gary King (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do the features of Facebook really need its own article? That seems too much like a how-to guide, and the section within this article, though longer than I'd personally like, seems to do a good job of summarizing them without giving excessive detail.
    • I moved the features out of this article because it was too lengthy. I'd rather leave it out so others can expand as they please while keeping the main article nice and clean. Gary King (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Why though? The features aren't notable, and doesn't need expansion. Keeping the article clean at the expensive of having bad secondary articles seems liking trying to hide the problem to me. Collectonian (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Why don't the features need expansion? There are many things to talk about, and new features are launched pretty often. Gary King (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Because the whole featured article is excessive detail about the features. All that isn't needed. It needs a summary, not a detailed listing of every last possible thing you can do on the site. Collectonian (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The controversy section is a semi-NPOV name, but otherwise seems okay. Facebook Beacon doesn't seem to need its own article at all, and I'm curious as to why it goes unmentioned until the controversy section. I'm also concerned about the entire Criticism of Facebook. Coverage is good, but that sub-article seems to be allowing all kinds of things when I think with careful slicing, any other major issues can be trimmed and fit back nicely into the existing controvery section, which already does a pretty good job of hitting the highlights. The subarticle seems too close to being an attack piece to me.
    • Controversy is a common title for this type of section. I also moved Beacon out because of the list in the article, etc. Beacon originally was mentioned in History but overlapped too much with the section's content so I merged the two. Seems a lot cleaner so the same thing does not get repeated many times over again. Criticism of Facebook should be a separate article, also. Same reason as the previous two. Gary King (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Again, why should it have a separate article, other than to hide a problem? Collectonian (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Because Beacon is still in progress and new information will be added to it pretty often? Gary King (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Again, that isn't a reason to put it apart. Being new with new information doesn't mean it should get undue attention nor that it needs another article. Collectonian (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting closer to being ready, and would be nice to see an FA website article, so hope this helps (wanna tackle Neopets next)? :-P Collectonian (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't play Neopets and never have. Gary King (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That was a joke :P Collectonian (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from La Pianista (talk · contribs)

Pretty good article...again, you're pressing me for critical things to say. I'm forced to nitpick. :-)

  • See this discussion on an archive of the Language Reference Desk. Generally, sentences such as "Users can post messages for their friends to see, and update their personal profile to notify friends about themselves" either (1) need the comma to be removed or (2) a new noun or pronoun (as a grammatical subject) for the section of the sentence following the comma to be complete. You can choose either; I'll leave that up to the editors. (There are more examples, as situations such as these are recurrent in this article.)
    • The comma discussion was very useful! I've gone through the article to fix what I could find, but could you take a quick look through and point out any sentences that still have strange sentence fragments?
  • I'm not sure about this, but does facebook.com have to be quoted in the phrase "after purchasing the domain name facebook.com in 2005"?
    • I've added 'thefacebook.com' to show that the domain name has changed. Gary King (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "News Feed was too cluttered and was full..." can be shortened to "News Feed was too cluttered and full..."
  • It sounds awkward to cut this sentence in half: "Facebook announced on May 10, 2007 a plan..." Instead, "On May 10, 2007 Facebook announced a plan..."
  • Why consistently re-introduce Zuckerberg as the "founder of Facebook"? Include the phrase once and bluelink his name instead.
  • It would flow better to switch these to sentences around: "This new component of the website is not an application, but instead is integrated directly into the user's browser as the user browses the Facebook website. The feature allows users to chat with their friends, much in the way instant messaging works." First you describe what it is and then what it is not.
    • I prefer to say it is not an application, first, because it is assumed that it is an application. Gary King (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Avoid the use of passive sentences: "Facebook is often compared to MySpace by the media..." Instead, "The media often compares Facebook to MySpace..." Active tense is more succint and, hence, desirable in an encyclopedia.
  • No biggie, but does the section "Beacon" belong under "Privacy"?
    • I think it should, because the main news about it has been controversial. It hasn't proven to be, say, a huge source of revenue for the company yet. Gary King (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A truly outstanding article...wonderfully cited, and (hip, hip, hoorRAY!) all of the awkward sentences are gone. Bravissimo, and I beg for an encore! :-)

Thanks for the review! I've commented on some items and crossed out the ones that are straightforward. Gary King (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)