Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fark/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:13, 8 March 2010 [1].

Fark edit

Fark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): WTF? (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Fark has been a reasonably stable good article since September 2009. It's undergone a good deal of research and editing, and just concluded a peer review and another round of copyediting. I believe that it is comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced, and covers the topic well. So, I hereby respectfully submit this for consideration of featured status. WTF? (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC-TV link is now working; I think at the time you clicked on it this morning, the server may have been down. But it's up now. Also changed some of the ALT text of some images and removed other images completely, per below. WTF? (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link is working now, yes. However, the same problems with alt text remain. Alt text generally conveys the essence of what the image looks like and is verifiable from the image alone. You can look at WP:ALT or any of the other current FACs for examples of acceptable alt text. Ucucha 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    The screenshot should suffice here. Image removed. WTF? (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Fark.com screenshot2.png - Image does attribute copyright holder (NFCC#10A). NFCC#10C requires a "specific fair-use rationale" and WP:FURG, incorporated therein by reference, requires a "detailed fair use rationale". "To illustrate the website Fark.com" is not specific or detailed and is a statement of function, not of purpose (of course an image illustrates).
    Fair-use rationale for screenshot modified based off of the one available for 4chan, another FA. WTF? (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely the image is doing more? The 4Chan rationale is also poor. Additional verbiage to the effect of "to facilitate identification and critical commentary of..." would remedy the issue. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:UFIA highway sign.jpg - Derivative work of what is, presumably, a Tennessee DoT work. The United States does not have freedom of panorama. "the_rev" is not the author of the sign and cannot, therefore, license it. Image, further, does not appear at the source indicated (i.e. even derivative license cannot be confirmed).
    Er, uh? Here's an image (File:US 41 Copper Harbor.jpg) of a roadsign in another FA (promoted in June 2009). Not sure why this one wouldn't be allowed and that one would? WTF? (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That sign is purely text (typeface is not eligible for copyright protection as a utilitarian article). This image contains a graphic. Remember, also, to consider OTHERSTUFF. Many uploaded images are not appropriately licensed - even those in FAs. This, however, is the image being discussed and the only one relevant. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The TN DOT makes various logos available to journalists for "news reports and other publications", so one would think that they wouldn't have a problem with a photo of one of their signs, containing a logo which isn't even a high resolution copy of the actual logo? Thoughts? WTF? (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Fark logo iran.jpg - NFCC#3A requires minimal use: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information). Iran logo is not meaningfully different from the other logo depicted. Prose would be sufficient to describe the addition of a grid pattern to the map, if that information is truly necessary (NFCC#1).
    The other logo has been removed. I think the copy of the logo with the green stripe is important in depicting the site's support for the Iran election protesters. It was a one-time event, and the logo really isn't accessible (either on Fark or anywhere else) anymore. WTF? (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The threshold is "significantly increas[ing] readers' understanding of the topic". How does a reader better understand Fark by seeing a subtlety altered logo? Being a mere one-time event further indicates a lack of importance to the greater topic. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we could argue that it does "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", since it clearly helps to illustrate an example how Fark, Curtis, and the community respond to events on a global scale. While it is a one-time event, it was a one-time event that received major media coverage. Furthermore, doesn't Wikipedia have a duty to help to accurately document history as it unfolds -- inclusion of the image greatly increases our ability to document this event. WTF? (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Fark jeopardy.jpg - No significant contribution to reader understanding (NFCC#8). A non-free image is not needed to understand that this was a Jeopardy! category. Эlcobbola talk 15:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Image removed. WTF? (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks better than Dragon Quest in terms of prose (1a)—I found only a few prose and linking bugs. I didn't verify with all of the sources, though, and another look through might still help.

  • "Curtis states that the word "fark" originated either from a chat room euphemism for a popular four-letter obscenity, or from a drunken misspelling; although he tells people it is the former because it is a "better story that way"."
  • "Fark was officially incorporated in the state of Delaware as, "Fark, Inc.", on January 31, 2008."—why a comma before the company name?
  • Different issue here: "On November 24, 2009, Fark launched a new partnership with USA Today ..."—the prose looks fine, but there are three links to the USA Today article in the same paragraph! Check for other such overlinking.
  • "Curtis has used public relations to drive traffic, including interviews every Friday on TechTV for one to one and a half years (ca. 2002–2003) about the three weirdest tech-oriented stories of the week."—confusing sentence structure that suggests each interview lasted for a year or more.
  • "These are essentially in-jokes which either originated on Fark or on other sites (such as 4chan or Something Awful) that have become an integral part of the community culture and used in myriad discussions in the forums, regardless of whether they apply to the topic at hand."—not really a bug or even a clear mistake, but see Words to avoid on the use of "essentially".
  • "A similar site, Something Awful, sponsors Photoshop Phriday contests."—this feels like it was just plopped at the end of its paragraph to mention the other site. Was SA inspired to do so by Fark? vice versa?
  • "The site is also frequently used as a humorous source for news by many radio stations, as well as and late night comedy shows. Although muchMuch to Drew Curtis' dismay, it is very rarely cited as a source for many of these stories."—don't waste words.

I see you (WTF?) nominated Slashdot for GA as well. It looks good from a glance, and I hope they both get the bronze star. For sites like these, I think Wikipedia is a much-needed "but seriously" button to learn of them. --an odd name 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I think there just a few too many rough edges with this still. A few examples:
  • Although Curtis won't release official revenue figures, he estimated that, in 2006, the site earned just under $600,000 per year." This doesn't seem to tally with one of the sources used, which appears to claim revenues of $600,000 per month from ad revenue alone.[2] Plus "won't" is too informal a register for an encyclopedia article.
  • We're told twice that Wil Wheaton is a member of the site. Is he really that important?
  • The proprietor of the site is variously called "Drew Curtis", "Curtis", or "Drew" throughout the article, apparently randomly. Pick one style and stick with it.
  • Fark is a relatively small operation, run more or less singlehandedly by founder Drew Curtis ...". This doesn't seem to be consistent with comments elsewhere in the article and elsewhere, where it's said that "Drew runs it with some help from a couple of tech guys" (link above), and the statement on the web site: "Fark site redesign is now live. Hope nothing breaks, we're all out drinking."
  • "Curtis launched Foobies.com in 2006 as a NSFW (not safe for work) offshoot of Fark, primarily because advertisers complained about links to female breasts on the main site." Is it really necessary to wikilink female breasts? Half your readers will be quite familiar with them because they have them, and the other half because ... well for obvious reasons.
  • ... noted the disparity between Fark's revenue and the amount of press given to sites like Digg". Doesn't make sense to note a disparity between two things that are not the same, i.e., revenue and publicity in this case.
  • "67.2% of users originate from the United States." Sentences ought not to start with a number, and "%" should be spelt out according to the MoS. Should be "Sixty-seven percent ...".
  • Several of the sections are too short to stand alone, Fark Parties and Photoshop contests, for instance. Why is "Parties" capitalised but "contest" isn't?
  • The History section is very bitty; lots of short paragraphs beginning "X did Y".
  • "He registered Fark.com in September 1997, when a friend mentioned that all of the four letter domain names were disappearing." Surely he registered the name after his friend mentioned that.
  • However, during major events such as the September 11 attacks or the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, usage spikes and the site can actually be seen as a more serious outlet for news." In what way can a usage spike be seen as a more serious outlet for news? More serious than what?

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fark/archive1&oldid=1078799458"