This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic literatureTemplate:WikiProject Electronic literatureElectronic literature articles
A fact from Da share z0ne appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 April 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that da share z0ne is a satirical social media account supposedly run by a skeleton character?
Oh man, Brandt Luke Zorn, I am so excited to review another of your Weird Twitter articles. I'll get this done within the next day or two. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ugh, life and work intervened but I'm getting rolling now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
A few comments
Is there a better reference for the start date than herb.com? I'm not going to hold the GA pass on that basis but it seems weird to be using a medical marijuana company website as a source if there's anything better.
I switched to the Uloop article, which gives a more precise date anyway. Most sources don't mention when da share z0ne started, and the Newsweek article incorrectly says the account began in 2016 (the Twitter page itself shows that it started in September 2015).
The first sentence is awkward, can it be rephrased? Something like "Da share z0ne, which first began posting in 2015, is known for..." maybe?
I split the first sentence in two. Let me know what you think of the new wording.
Do they actually use "dozens of tacky fonts in a single image"?
Good catch, that would be a little extreme even by da share z0ne's standards. The source said the account's posts draw from dozens of different fonts, but not within the same image every time. I reworded it to "multiple".
Skeletons don't get mentioned until a quote nearly at the end of the visual aesthetic paragraph but they're a major part of the schtick
Double check—I believe the word "skeleton" is mentioned three times in the article body before that point, including the first time that the article "skeleton (undead)" is pipe-linked. —BLZ · talk 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, this comment was poorly worded in the first place. My intent was to say that skeletons don't get mentioned in the visual aesthetic sub-section until the end. However, I re-read it just now and realized that it works fine even without that - as you said, there's enough skeletons in the preceding section that it probably doesn't need repeating.
Again aside from the minor complaint about citing the date to Herb.co, but considering that the start date is hardly controversial I'm not that worried.
There's not much criticism of da share z0ne in the article, but I did some googling, and that's because there's basically no criticism of da share z0ne out there.
Thanks for searching for that. I've found that when journalists write about an internet phenomenon like da share z0ne—especially internet phenomenon as niche or idiosyncratic as da share z0ne—they're usually writing to introduce it to a mainstream audience, justifying why it's good and explaining its oddball qualities to people unfamiliar with it. If an internet phenomenon is no good, the likely response is to ignore it rather than write about why it's bad. After all, why waste time writing an article whose pitch is "Hey mainstream audience, this quirky thing you've never heard of? Well, it's bad." We may someday see a contrarian negative take on da share z0ne published in a reliable source, and if that happens I pledge to include it in the article. —BLZ · talk 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No concerns.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Although there are three non-free images, in my opinion it complies with the minimal use provision because each image depicts a different aspect of da share z0ne - the profile image akin to a brand logo, the example meme to depict the visual style, and the card game image.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Aside from the minor quibbling above, I think this is largely good to go. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Premeditated Chaos: I've addressed your points above, let me know if there's anything else I can do! —BLZ · talk 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Article looks great with the points addressed, happy to pass this as another weird Twitter GA. Well done! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Interesting. On first read, I really thought it failed NPOV and was surprised to see a GA stamp on it. But I ventai LG wing quibble. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
is it actually on linkedin? i can't find it there nor any mention of it being on there anywhere else — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.232.35 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
I cannot find any sources listed here on Wikipedia or anywhere online, so I removed this statement. Aveaoz (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply