Talk:Bomis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: — Cirt (talk)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Seabuckthorn, feel free to take your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Hroðulf & Ohconfucius, very much

Request: Fate The infobox says (unsourced) that Bomis is defunct. However, I could not find any mention in the article of Bomis after 2005 (when Shell is CEO). When did the company stop trading and what was its ultimate fate? (liquidated? bankrupt? sold? dormant? inactive?) I guess there is at least one editor who can tell us without us paying for a business records search. This is relevant, but not crucial, to the "broad coverage" good article criterion. Could add someone a sourced sentence on the fate of Bomis? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)  Done, added info from the Internet Archive, see diff. As you can see, I did extensive research from over one-hundred (100) sources, and there was no info in those sources on the company and its activities post the time period you mentioned, above. Thank you, Hroðulf, for your helpful suggestion, — Cirt (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Cirt (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Nicely done. That pushes the coverage aspect of the article way above GA. Though, if someone has a Dun & Bradstreet report (other business search firms are available) and is willing to contribute the relevant facts without breaking their D&B contract or violating the shareholders' privacy, that would be even better. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you. I'm glad you feel this is now sufficient for GA quality. — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Background section The history of Bomis is indeed much intertwined with that of Wikipedia and the life of JW. However, I feel that the background section, which contains significant amount of biographical material of JW, is probably in violation of WP:SUMMARY. I feel that there is no need to mention Jimmy's place of birth or even up to his PhD. Bearing in mind Jimmy has his own article, and that his childhood and education has no direct relevance to the Bomis project, I would suggest that much of this background section be deleted, and a brief description of JW's relationship with Davis and Shell's at the point of formation would probably suffice. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)  Done, per above recommendation by Ohconfucius, I've gutted all info from the Background sect prior to the info on Wales' PhD track. Please see diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Comment Nice improvement to readability and relevance. I would personally have cut the bio even further, going no further back than his hire to Chicago Options. Academic career details don't seem to have direct relevance to Bomis. With or without, I think it is ready for GA. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC) I tend to agree that there's still too much background, but that it's already an improvement. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)  Done, I've cut even more from that early Wales studies from the Background sect, see diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 2005 editing incident section The incident is arguably more about JW than Bomis, although the controversy that was whipped up was about Jimm's role in Bomis and how that was reflected in his WP biography (ie much more JW-centric than focussed on Bomis). However, today, the incident section takes up 265 words in his biography, which seems not too disproportionate to the length of bio of 4000 words. Yet, the editing incident section occupies 579 words, more both in word count and as a percentage of the Bomis article, which I feel is very much undue weight. I suggest that this be cut down to at least 20 percent below the length of the section in Jimmy's biography. If it were entirely up to me, I'd probably make that at least 50%. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)  Done, trimmed sect down significantly in size, per recommendation by Ohconfucius, above. Please see diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: History "founded in 1996 by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis. … as among the "Top 10 Wikipedia Moments"." (not a concise summary of the History subsection) Major Point 1.1: Background "" (not in the lead ) Major Point 1.2: Foundation "founded in 1996 by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis. … The name was an acronym of Bitter Old Men in Suits.[8] The site focused on content geared for a male audience, including information on sporting activities, automobiles, and females." (not a concise summary of the Foundation subsection) Major Point 1.3: Hosted content "It included "Bomis Babes", … successful after focusing on X-rated media." (not a concise summary of the Hosted content subsection) Major Point 1.4: Nupedia and Wikipedia "Bomis is best known for having supported … and subsequently closed in 2003." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 1.5: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees "The non-profit organization the Wikimedia Foundation was started … Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation." (not a concise summary of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees subsection) Major Point 1.6: 2005 editing incident "In 2005, Wales edited Wikipedia … as among the "Top 10 Wikipedia Moments"." (The subsection is offtopic.) Major Point 2: Aftermath "The Atlantic gave Bomis the nickname "Playboy of the Internet" … characterization of the services provided by Bomis." (not a concise summary of the Aftermath subsection, it should be much shorter.) Major Point 3: Analysis "Academics and scholars … revenues by charging for premium content." (not a concise summary of the Aftermath subsection, it should be much shorter.) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: History "founded in 1996 by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis. … as among the "Top 10 Wikipedia Moments"." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 1.1: Background "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 1.2: Foundation "founded in 1996 by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis. … The name was an acronym of Bitter Old Men in Suits.[8] The site focused on content geared for a male audience, including information on sporting activities, automobiles, and females." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 1.3: Hosted content "It included "Bomis Babes", … successful after focusing on X-rated media." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 1.4: Nupedia and Wikipedia "Bomis is best known for having supported … and subsequently closed in 2003." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 1.5: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees "The non-profit organization the Wikimedia Foundation was started … Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 1.6: 2005 editing incident "In 2005, Wales edited Wikipedia … as among the "Top 10 Wikipedia Moments"." (The subsection is offtopic.) Major Point 2: Aftermath "The Atlantic gave Bomis the nickname "Playboy of the Internet" … characterization of the services provided by Bomis." ( the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body, it should be much shorter.) Major Point 3: Analysis "Academics and scholars … revenues by charging for premium content." ( the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body, it should be much shorter.) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". Bomis (/ˈbɒmɨs/ to rhyme with "promise")[3] was a dot-com company founded in 1996 by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis. The first sentence should also mention it’s relation to Wikipedia, which is an important aspect of its notability. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies:  Done Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons:  Done Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
None Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC): I feel that the 2005 editing incident subsection should be removed. The relevant content should be adjusted in other subsections. The scope of a topic is defined by reliable sources. RS cited in this subsection have topics: "Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio", "Wikipedia's benevolent dictator", "Wikipedia founder edits himself", "The Encyclopedic Mind of Jimmy Wales", "Top 10 Wikipedia Moments - World Wide Wiki: Who Founded Wikipedia?", "Annals of Information: Know It All - Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?", etc. Hence the notability of this incident is within the scope of Wikipedia and its founder, rather than Bomis. The majority of this section is, I believe, offtopic.

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license) & (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC): None Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR): NA 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are :

• The lead does not provide an accessible overview and does not give relative emphasis.
• The 2005 editing incident subsection should be removed. (WP:OFFTOPIC)
• 1a issue: "Bomis was placed into a position where it needed to let go the majority of its employees to continue operating as Wikipedia with its new not-for-profit status was not producing revenues for the company." (I’m not sure )

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 11:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much for the above suggestions, will respond to them soon. — Cirt (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, Seabuckthorn, I've gone through your recommendations point-by-point and modified the article accordingly. I added more to the WP:LEAD from areas you felt needed to be expanded upon, and trimmed content from the intro with respect to sections you thought should be reduced. With respect to the subsection you voiced concerns about, above, I removed a majority of its content. I also removed the content as a specific subsection itself. I then took relevant content and adjusted other subsections accordingly, as you recommended, above. Thanks very much for your helpful suggestions, the article looks better for it! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)