Talk:Personal wedding website/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) 22:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial review comments

I've marked a couple of obvious things in case having a checklist is handy for you, but items marked on the list above aren't final, and there is still time to make improvements. Here are a few comments to get you started:

• The introductory section is far too short. It should be one or two paragraphs, not just a one-sentence definition. The guideline at WP:LEAD has general advice that might be helpful to you. As examples, you might consider the introductions at Website and Blog. Both of them are longer articles, but you should be able to see how the introductions (partly) summarize the contents.
• The descriptions of services in the table look like they are simply copied from the websites. For example, the phrases "a Keepsake of your site" and "wedding countdown, and more. . ." do not strike me as something you've written yourself, and it has strange capitalization. Everything on Wikipedia should be written in your own words, using normal grammar, punctuation, and capitalization rules.
• The image you've added is missing both the copyright statement and the fair-use rationale. Have a look at File:Apple-logo.png to get an idea of what is necessary. The actual rules are at WP:FUR.
• All images need captions.
• The links to the websites in the first section violate the WP:External links guideline, under WP:ELNO#EL19. (See footnote #6 at the end of that rule for an example.)

You can use this section to talk to me and other people. The ultimate decision about whether to list the article as a "Good article" is mine, but anyone and everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion and to improve the article. I will offer further comments in a day or two.

If you want to reach me quickly for any reason, or if you think I've forgotten about you, then you are also welcome to leave a note for me at User talk:WhatamIdoing. I typically check that page for urgent messages several times a day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just a note that I've informed students that Good Articles reviews have been posted for some articles and they should reply to them ASAP. Thank you for taking up this review! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have a few questions about the introduction. It was a little longer earlier but we were told that it was not to include any new information. What is the best way to introduce this article without 1.Using new info or 2. Repeating things that are said later in the article?User:gmz10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.40.153 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see where the misunderstanding lies. Leads are allowed to repeat what is in the article, albeit in a summarized form, just like article's abstracts (or book blurbs). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the general idea is a summary. One way to think about it is this: a lot of readers are only going to look at the introduction anyway. So you want to cover all the main points, so they'll have a good overview of the subject even if they don't read the whole article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ah that makes much more sense. I'll work on this over the weekend, thanks again for all your help! talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

An update: The article currently contains no images (which is technically okay, because none appear to be easily available), and as a result, it contains no images that are missing captions or have copyright problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

This comment is mostly about the Good article criteria called "broad in its coverage": It feels like we're missing information. Here are some questions I have:

• What about personal wedding websites in other countries? Canada, Europe and Japan have fairly similar rates of internet use. Are there any country-specific websites outside the US?
• What's their relationship to online gift registries? Do they provide links (and get affiliate/referral payments)? Are there any advertisements?
• Are the wedding websites mostly websites about providing information about the individual wedding to guests ("Click on ___ to see our wedding plans", sort of like Evite provides party information), or mostly about behind-the-scenes planning? If the latter, are there planning-only websites?
• Are these websites criticized? This talks about whether it's polite to issue wedding invitations in e-mail (rather than on paper), so I'm assuming there's something similar about whether wedding websites are polite (rather than being a demand for attention or a gift grab). However, what I mostly have in mind is more general criticism, like people criticize social networking sites for being "addicting", substituting for real human interactions, encouraging narcissism, etc.

Keep in mind that if all the reliable sources are silent on a given point, then we should be silent, too, but if we can find sources that talk about these things, then we should talk about them, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you're making progress. I wanted to remind you that encyclopedia articles don't usually include links to websites or businesses that they happen to mention. So you can just say "At The Knot, this feature is offered"; you don't have to say "At The Knot, this feature is offered". In addition to looking kind of spammy, including URLs tends to attract spammers to articles (with each of them thinking up some reason why his website needs to be used as the perfect example for everything), so then the article becomes rather spammy. (People call this the "spambait" problem: using URLs like that tends to act like "bait" that attracts more URLs like that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A week has passed without a progress report here. I'd very much like to see an update from the students; please note that no activity for a week is grounds to close the review due to no activity of the editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused: what's a progress report? Are we supposed to write that here? I've been writing feedback to the wikipedia people who are commenting on here and I have also been making edits to the page. Gina Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmz10 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And, in reply to the idea that we should include wedding websites internationally, does that need to be in another comparison chart? There are wedding websites from Canada and many of the American wedding websites, such as the Knot, have a section about how to plan culturally specific weddings (like a Chinese wedding). How should those be incorporated since that isn't an international website. I could not find any Chinese/Japanese websites, per say. Gina Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmz10 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Gina,

I'm not picky about the length of time, so you don't need to worry about an arbitrary one-week time limit, especially with the long holiday weekend that just ended. Yes, you are permitted to write here! In fact, unless you're writing at either Talk:Personal wedding website (the regular talk page) or at Talk:Personal wedding website/GA1 (this review page), then I probably won't see any comments you make.

The more I look at the comparison chart, the less happy I am with it. It needs to be trimmed substantially (see my comments below, on the regular talk page). It is not currently a summary, and it is not well-written. It's more like a copy-and-paste from the websites. Try to think about what the important differences are between these websites.

For the rest, what I'd like is for you to think about what you can write (with sources) about the global perspective on these websites in regular paragraphs, rather than in a chart. It's possible that no such sources will exist, in which case we won't be able to write anything, but please see what you can find, and let me know the results of your search. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm getting confused as to what sources I can use. If I were to write a section on wedding websites abroad, would I simply cite those websites or would I need to find a book or an academic source that discusses them? User:Gmz10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.40.153 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A major problem here is that indeed there are very few sources outside the websites itself. I think that with clear attribution we can use such sources in this article. Otherwise there will really be little to write about. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's always best to use WP:Independent sources, because you want to write about what really is the case, and not just what some commercial website's marketing department says is the case. For simple statements, you are permitted to use non-independent sources.

Think of it this way: if you want to know what (for example) Coca-cola, Inc., does in Asia, would you expect to get more accurate and unbiased information from a magazine article or from Coca-cola's corporate website? The same principles apply to wedding-related websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I of course agree with you; but what if the only source on that that we could find was a Coca-Cola press release? Sometimes we have no luxury of selecting more reliable source over a less reliable one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Usually, we want to choose the best source, but that doesn't make the less-than-ideal source completely useless.

I don't think we've taken advantage of the independent sources that are available. For example, Chapter 4 is all about personal wedding websites. This has a substantial section on them. Do you see how they and other sources like this provide general summaries of the kinds of features normally available, rather than specific lists of exactly which website offers exactly which feature (which might, after all, change overnight)?

This book identifies such websites as "one of the fastest-growing trends" (The first sentence is probably wrong to call it a "tradition", BTW). This book says that providing links to wedding registries is a (perhaps "the") major point behind the websites, but this one says it's "somewhat questionable" (but later appears to endorse it, on p. 145). This (p 154) says that online RSVPs reduce printing and postage costs associated with RSVP cards. This book endorses them as "green" options.

This book recommends that wedding planners advertise on the websites that offer these services, especially when it can be done for free. If they're finding it to be a good way to drum up business, then I wonder if it really is a complete substitute for wedding planners, or if it's more like a way of simplifying the work for someone who wouldn't have hired a wedding planner no matter what.

This list, by the way, was the result of maybe an hour's search online; it is not difficult to find these kinds of sources. These may not even be the best ones. (I do really like the recent addition, BTW.) Additionally, this news story, while probably useless for the article, had a fun story about a couple who work in the Indian film industry and what they did for their wedding website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Good finds. I'd expect they should help the student editors to flesh out the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a problem with one of my citations. I cited Sharon Naylor's book in the "Purpose" section and then referenced it again later in the section, it's currently in big bright red letters at the bottom of the page that Naylor isn't a valid reference name. Help!!! Gina Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmz10 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. You have to manually name the reference tag, because the software isn't smart enough to guess which one you're referring to. (This is probably a feature, since you cite two different publications by Naylor, and odds are 50-50 that it would guess wrong if it were capable of guessing.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Gmz10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmz10 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it known that I have been trying to research other counties websites. While I have found actual websites, I have had no luck finding real sources that talk about that specific country. There are books about planning specific cultural weddings or planning a wedding that will be held abroad but they are all from the point of Americans. Should we change the title of this page to "American Personal Wedding Website"? talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

No, there's no need to rename the article. We can only include what the reliable sources include, so if they don't talk about these websites in other countries, we have to just silently omit that. (Maybe someday in the future, the sources will talk about such differences, and then the article can be expanded.) Thank you for making a good effort to find any such sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

You've been making good progress on the introductory section, but I think it is still incomplete. I'm thinking that we have three things to cover:

1. What the most common or typical features of the websites are. So instead of just "planning and communication", say something about what that means, e.g., used to communicate what kinds of information and to whom? (The main goal is to summarize the ==Purpose== section.)
2. What they cost (free, paid, and comparison to alternatives). This is probably already adequate.
3. That there are social and etiquette issues. Probably one or two sentences would be plenty, but since we have a whole section on criticism, we should probably at least mention the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Etiquette

This was recently removed:

Website etiquette can become complicated when it comes to what information can be put on the personal site. There are questions as to whether or not putting a gift registry on the website is acceptable and how the couple should go about telling their guest about the registry on their site. The best solution to this is to inform the guests that you do have a website when the invitations are sent out, but do not tell them about the registry and let them find it on their own. Couples should remember to not put events that not all wedding guests are invited to on the site, such as an engagement party or a wedding shower. It is also important to not constantly update the site, as guest can become annoyed.

I think this is probably good information, but it's not written in an encyclopedic tone. This sounds more like giving advice than stating facts. Perhaps it would be possible to re-write it to be less "how to" and more "plain facts". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I made the changes/additions you suggested to our intro and the etiquette section. I added all of the info you deleted but edited it to make it sound more informational, I totally understood what you meant once I read over that paragraph again. Does it sound better now? Gina Z (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It does sound better. The last sentence (which starts "Couples should not...") is still an example of giving advice rather than stating facts, though, so you'll want to fix that if you can.

(By the way, it was originally deleted by another editor, not by me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sentence fixed! I also added the page numbers for the source that was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmz10 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• The page number for the Melendez book is wrong. There are 480 pages in the whole book. Which pages did this particular information come from? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• As noted on the regular talk page, there are now two unsourced sections on the page. The information appears to be valid, but citations would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Closing

• Just noting that since this was an assignment and grades were turned in, the odds of the remaining concerns being addressed are pretty much zero, so this can be closed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  As much as I'd like this not to be the case, yeah :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 12:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• That has been my assumption, too, and with no activity from the students for a few days (much of our conversation has happened on the regular article talk page), I will close it today. Because of the two unsourced sections and a few other, smaller problems, it will close as not listed.
  I'd like to say that I have really enjoyed working with these students, especially Gmz10 (talk · contribs), and they have made a huge improvement, even though they didn't reach their target of GA status. Before they got started, the article was a six sentence stub with two really lousy sources. It is now ten times as long, far more informative, and supported by a dozen good-quality, reliable WP:Independent sources. These people have achieved far more than the typical new editor, and I want to thank them and acknowledge their hard work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)