Talk:The Project Formerly Known As Kindle Forkbomb

Untitled[edit]

This article has an engaging and clear title. The lead paragraph blends in with the body. I recommend you further use subsections to separate the lead paragraph. Wiki formatting is used but could be used mouch more effectively so that the article reads better. Article has no grammar errors.

Article meets NPOV, NOR, and V criteria. Wikilinks are used and references are used. External resources are not used however. Article contains relevant images that add greatly to the article. Overall, I would recommend the use of a book infobox on the PDF form of the project to provide more information and to make it look professional. Also could use more sections. Great start!Mazurr15 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Overall really well done!
Love the use of pictures
Accomplishes NPOV
I would break the article into different sections. Maybe have one on the concept of the forkbomb, uncreative writing, or whatever else your little heart desires
Add external links if applicable

Sarahdobie (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks nice from already the pictures really help out. I would maybe change the first heading seeing as it is the same as the page heading I don't think you need to repeat maybe change it to summary or something like that. The references and footnotes are well done, maybe try to find some more and maybe try to find some examples of content that was put up by this project and a little more history like why the namechange is it still going on if not when did it start and when did it end and why did it end.Droscoe2015 (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The beginning of this article is very redundant. The title is repeated twice, and the name of the article is repeated way too many times. 2. The wording in the last paragraph is a little awkward so you might want to consider revising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmarshon97 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great title. Lead paragraph is well written. The images also make this article notable. I would check some punctuation errors, it seems that there are commas missing where they should be. Good job with including the sources. Informative article overall.

Looks good so far, not much to complain about here from an informational standpoint. I would suggest adding more details in about the history of the name, as the title of the article begs an answer to the question why the name was changed, plus other details pertaining to the name change.also, the first heading should be changed up a little so the article doesn't look redundant at a glance Sources are well organized in their own separate section, that's a plus.Roo9820 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a well-written article and I like the use of pictures. Maybe include a little more background and how common it is today, including other similar projects that other artists have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcalopiz (talk • contribs) 21:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R.McGee (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Really just throwing in some headings and expanding a bit on those specific ideas could make this post look and feel a lot more professional. Potentially going into what a forkbomb is and why its the project formerly known as and not simply Kindle Forkbomb. Images are a great pull for the eye but maybe some splashes of change in the format of the writing would keep the readers eye bouncing between the two and using each's context to build upon the other's statements.[reply]

I like the article and how you included pictures. I didn't see any violations of NPOV/NOR and there were citations. I would just reformat some of the information under organized headers and look for a little more background info having to do with Ubermorgan or the project. Cappy8118 (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]