Wikipedia:Peer review/Fark/archive1

Fark edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article recently underwent a successful Good article review on September 23, 2009. It has remained relatively stable since then, and has a good amount of reliable sources and interesting content. I would like to know what still needs to be done to bring this up to Featured article standards? Thanks! WTF? (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an experienced reviewer so it would be good if other people review the article and make their own comments. I've made a few minor changes to the language to try and remove some bits that sounded repetitive. The article is lacking in images, especially one of Drew. I notice his article has one of him so perhaps that should be included, albeit it isn't a great picture? I'm afraid I can't think of any more feedback to give. In case nobody else offers advice here, I guess your next move could be to see if there are any featured articles on websites and to read those for some inspiration and ideas on what could be done to improve the article. --bodnotbod (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I found a decent shot of Drew Curtis on Flickr that's licensed in the Creative Commons, so I uploaded that and added it to the history section.

I also removed the 'citation needed' tag from the sentence in the lead about greenlit links recieving 300,000 page views because that statement is summarizing cited information in the 'traffic and users' section. So a specific citation is unnecessary in the lead. WTF? (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of things I noticed:

Images need alt text
The last external link "Grampy's Cliché City" should be removed per WP:ELNO
I think the Foobies section should be merged with history as it's not quite a feature of Fark but it is connected.

Hope they help. CrimsonFox ^talk 13:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add an additional comment about citations; I currently count 16 out of 59 citations in the references section as citing Fark.com itself. The rest are coming from outside sources. WTF? (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]