Talk:Gurl.com/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 22:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Lullabying, I'll be the one to take up this nomination's review, which I will present shortly. I hope my feedback will be helpful and I get to learn something new in the process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Lullabying, I've completed the review. Great work on the article but some polishing is needed. See the assessment table and comments below for specifics. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions or concerns. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is good.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Follows the manual of style.	Pass

2. Verifiability:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Inline citations are present.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources are mostly reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research is present.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No flagrant copyright violation or plagiarism found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Covers all major aspects in fair depth.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Addresses the topic directly without deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality:

Notes	Result
No neutrality issues were found.	Pass

5. Stability:

Notes	Result
No edit warring or content disputes.	Pass

6. Illustration:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Tags and fair use rationales are appropiate.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Captions and use of images are appropiate.	Pass

Comments

• The article needs copyediting. There are a lot minor mistakes here and there. For example; the first line in the lead might need a "," before "that", the second line in the lead is missing a "was", the caption in the infobox should say "2018" instead of "2011", the fourth line of the second paragraph of history doesn't need "while" and "in beginning", ref 8 says its from Variety but it's instead from The New York Times, the second last line of history should say "u" instead of "o", etc etc. These are just in the lead and the first section, there are more like these afterwards. The section under content uses present tense in some lines, which should be in the past tense. "satisfaction in marriage" needs an ending quotation mark.
  •  Done Ref 9 is fixed; "o" to "u" is fixed. lullabying (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • "Satisfaction in marriage" is fixed as well. lullabying (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I changed the caption in the infobox to "since 2011" instead. lullabying (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • "Was" is added to the second line in the lead. lullabying (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • No comma before "that" in the first line of the lead is grammatically correct. Can you suggest another way to reword? lullabying (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

      Lullabying, how about replacing "was online" with "operated" then? Anyways, this one doesn't matter much I just think it can look a bit odd at first glance. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

      • Sure thing. lullabying (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Some writing has been changed to past tense. Thanks! lullabying (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I removed "in beginning"; it was supposed to read "beginning in." lullabying (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• The fourth line of the second paragraph says that the site was non-commercial. This isn't what the citation says. Non-commercial includes more than not having merchandise, it implies it was ad free as well which isn't clear here.
  •  Done I added a source for it. Ref 5 (Community in the Digital Age: Philosophy and Practice) mentions Gurl.com was an example of a decline in non-commercial media aimed at children and discussed its ethics in its inclusion of advertising. lullabying (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 9 is a primary source, it should be replaced with a secondary source if possible.
  • Ref 9 is The New York Times; do you mean a different one? lullabying (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you mean ref 19? Unfortunately I could not find a secondary source for it, given that this was 10 years ago and news media sometimes don't report on website changes. lullabying (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, that's what I meant and that's alright. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Aspirational fantasy could be wikilinked to aspirational brand.
  •  Done lullabying (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• I think "most media outlets" should be changed to either commentators or reviewers.
  •  Done I changed to "reviewers." lullabying (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• The first line describing the first logo could be moved in the body of the article.
  • It's already in the body of the article, at the end of the first paragraph. lullabying (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

    Sorry I meant the second line, which describes the logo. It makes the caption appear as large as the image itself. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• • •  Done I took it out. lullabying (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

      Lullabying, I've read through the article for a second time and I'm going to promote this artice now since most of the issues have been resolved. There's one minor issue though which i would request you to correct, the second line under content should be in the past tense and the first two lines under legacy should be in present tense. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

      •  Done lullabying (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)