Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2379a717d9514c2

Jump to content

Talk:GoDigital Media Group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Likeanechointheforest in topic Proposed History Section

Business Units

[edit]

Hi. My name is Matthew Metlov and I work for GoDigital Media Group. The current page has a section called "Business Units" that has an out-dated list of businesses and is partially uncited/poorly-cited. Also, the businesses it's listing are subsidiaries, not divisions of the same company as inferred by the "Business Units" language. I'd like to propose replacing that section with the below draft, which is more complete, updated, cited, and adds a few sentences summarizing what the company does. Thank you in advance for taking a look!

Matthewjmt (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note: There's a lot of promotional language on the page that should be cut down. Go ahead with the edit, minus most of the first paragraph of your proposed edit due to redundancy. Start the edit at "GoDigital Media Group's subsidiaries include:" Likeanechointheforest (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed History Section

[edit]

Hi. My name is Matthew Metlov and I work for GoDigital Media Group. The current page has a section called "Background" that I feel has various quality issues. Many of the citations are to press releases. It has content like "We have a vision for a billion dollar balance sheet of rights" and features the “Industry Leadership” awards. Some paragraphs are just one sentence long and MOS:LIST discourages lists in articles when paragraph-style prose could be used instead (for the acquisitions).

I've prepared a proposed replacement that uses better citations, full paragraphs, is more complete, and eliminates press releases/awards/promotion. I know it is difficult to compare the proposed draft to the article's current content, but I can't think of a better way to address all of the small issues with each citation or sentence or each individual thing of cited information that could be added. Pinging @Likeanechointheforest: who responded to my prior request. Thanks in advance to any impartial editors who take the time to review the proposed draft. Best regards.


Matthewjmt (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reply 2-DEC-2024

[edit]
  • Question:Would this draft replace the article entirely (with the infobox no doubt remaining, even though it's absent in the draft version)? If the answer is yes, then I believe that would definitely be going in the right direction.
  • A remaining issue I see would be the number of references. The draft contains approximately 6 paragraphs of text, yet there are 31 distinct sources used (44 ref notes in total). That is far too many for the amount of text here.
  • If I could suggest pruning the excess references so that only a modicum of the most essential sources remain. There should ideally be no instances where a sentence contains more than one reference (I count 9 instances). If you could take a second look at what is absolutely necessary and what can be removed, that would be greatly appreciated.
  • When ready to proceed, you may post a request in a new thread below, or continue in this thread by changing the {{Edit COI}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=y to |ans=n.

Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  06:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The proposal is to replace the "Background" section. Therefore, there is no infobox, as there wouldn't be one in the Background section. Most of the draft was only one citation per-sentence, but I managed to trim quite a few citations that were duplicative with others. I've revised the draft above. Matthewjmt (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Partly done: Did all except did not see notability in the final sentence! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply