Talk:Women's Wear Daily

This Article Needs A Lot Of TLC

I remember Women's Wear Daily being reported very often in the mainstream media prior to the Internet. When I read the Wikipedia article on it I immediately noticed two things: the article is woefully incomplete, stub status, and in the beginning there is one monstrous run-on sentence. (But at least the contributor has, well, contributed.) I tried to clean it up I found myself introducing factual errors in the process. Much of the existing article is taken from the style section of the New York Times. The editor in charge of style conventions used in journalistic articles in the Times says that leeway is often given to special sections of the Times, the Style section being mentioned specifically. Some of the informality, such as referring to people by their first names, has been introduced into this encyclopedic article. A huge amount of context is missing in what has been contributed so far. It needs the attention of someone both interested in high fashion and knowledgeable (not me). This is not a copout -- I spent two hours on it and didn't change one letter.

It also needs some of those big banners you see on other articles that say something to the effect that this is a high priority article that needs immediate attention, preferably by someone with some knowledge of the subject area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.50.102 (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. WWD plays a major role - often the primary role - in fashion and retail news. Importance should be evaluated. 208.118.163.99 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)