Talk:Netflix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Lead needs expanding, some other minor issues detailed below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Dead links, some unreliable sources, many more citations needed, possible over reliance on primary sources?
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Seems fairly broad although this would be better assessed by someone experienced with company articles. I would advise peer review, and asking at the relevant wikiproject.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Although fairly neutral, I'm concerned that it still seems a little promotional in some areas.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Seems stable, most recent edits appear to have been improving it for GA nomination.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Too many issues to pass at this time.

For future reference, GA nominations with outstanding issues like valid maintenance tags and dead external links are unlikely to pass. Some reviewers will even "quick fail" such articles. I have reviewed this article against the GA criteria and there are too many problems at the moment for it to pass. I am not overly familiar with company articles on Wikipedia. I would recommend that once the issues I have mentioned are addressed, you take this to peer review and ask someone from WikiProject Companies to take a look. It would also be worth comparing to other articles from that project that are already rated as GA or FA.

Infobox

Where it says "coming Fall 2010", please make that a non-seasonal description. Firstly, "fall" is not a familiar word for a season in all English-speaking countries. More importantly, using seasons to describe time periods on Wikipedia is tricky. The southern hemisphere has the opposite seasons to the northern one, and many regions of the world don't have four seasons. Although this article is specific to North America, and so the reader could safely assume what is meant, it's better to say "late 2010" or "last quarter of 2010"

Lead

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarise the main points of the article. At the moment, it's a bit too short, and there's quite a lot of the rest of the article that is not mentioned in the lead.
Netflix is a company. That should be mentioned in the opening sentence. Calling it a "service" sounds like slightly promotional marketing speak.
Following on from the first comment about the lead, that it needs expansion, I see that further down there are some controversies and criticism of the company. The negative aspects should also be in the lead to keep it balanced.

Services

Here we have the first of many {{citation needed}} tags. These need to be sourced as the article won't pass GA with them present.
I don't think that the "services" section should come first. It's an encyclopedia, so the services offered should really take a back seat to the history of the company and the coverage it has received in other sources.
"Netflix has several priced plan ..." - this grammar is wrong
There is a tag there saying that that statement is dubious. It certainly would need a reliable source there. Who says that plan is increasingly popular?
"This plan allows a subscriber to instantly watch unlimited TV episodes and movies and rent one DVD at a time..." - this isn't clear. All that has been mentioned so far is disc rental, so how would that allow the subscriber to "instantly watch" anything? They would have to wait for it in the post. If this refers to downloading or live streaming, that needs to be made clear.
"...although the recipient must register using a major credit or debit card." - this kind of information is not really encyclopedic
"In addition to its movie rental service, Netflix formerly sold used movies." - I'm not sure "used movies" is right. "Used DVDs"? It's the disc that's been used, not the actual film (all of which have been "used" many times)
Warner Bros needs to be linked
"...in an attempt to help Studios sell more..." - does this refer to a partcular studio? Or studios in general? If so, it should not have a capital letter.
"sell more physical media" - not sure what you mean by "physical media". Is this a technical term? I presume the DVDs rented by Netflix are also physical media?

Internet streaming

internet streaming can be linked (Streaming media)
In this section, and others, there are quite a few short paragraphs which could be combined with others. For example, with the first few paragraphs of this section, there doesn't seem to be a good reason for separating them as they are about the same thing.
This section could do with some more sources
"Video can also be viewed on various set-top devices which are listed in the Device support section." - I don't know, this sentence seems a bit redundant. Do we need to tell the reader what's coming up?

Profiles

Again, a tricky use of "that fall"

Device support

Clearly, many citations needed here
Is there any way of turning this into prose? It's always a bit awkward having lists in the middle of articles like this

Video game consoles

Try to avoid having so many citations in the middle of sentences as it makes it a bit harder to read. For example the sentence about the Xbox 360, could you find one citation that covers the whole sentence?

Set-top boxes

This, and the following section, are very short. They should either be expanded or combined. Having lots of short sections also has an effect on the table of contents, which is very long at the moment

Televisions

You can add a few more wikilinks, for example in this section, Vizio, LG, Sony
"Plasma TV's" - doesn't need an apostrophe (like wise Tube TV's, which should probably be cathode ray tube television or something)

History

This should be nearer the top, perhaps the first section?
Don't use someone's LinkedIn page as a reference - it's not reliable and is just giving them free promotion
I think you need a better reference than that Twitter link for how the company started. It's not clear of the context and could just have been a throwaway comment or exaggeration
"Since that time the company has built its reputation on the business model..." - source?
"The company believes this gives it an edge in competing with newcomers such as Blockbuster Video. " - bit promotional. Of course the company believes things like that. We're interested in what other sources have to say about the company.
"Some 35,000 different film titles are contained in the 1 million DVDs it sends out every day." - that's a really random sentence just on its own like that. Also, who says? There's a reference, but it needs attribution in the prose.
"Netflix has played a prominent role in independent film distribution. " - a sentence like that needs a source
"The company is well-known for its worker-oriented culture," - this may be true but it's not actually supported by the source cited. The source indeed talks about its worker-oriented culture, but doesn't say that this is "well known"
"Netflix has been one of the most successful dot-com ventures. " - needs a citation
"Impressively the DVD only took 5 years..." - "impressively" is not neutral and is inserting the Wikipedia editor's opinion into the article (the reader can be impressed or not, that's up to them)

Sales and marketing

Websites shouldn't be in italics (WP:ITALICS)
"Posren and Tsutaya discas would be Japanese equivalents." - they would be? Or they are?
"Netflix announced that in the fall of 2010"

Competitors

"none of the purely online companies appear to approach Netflix in terms of market share or revenues." - source?

Legal issues and controversies

The template here makes a good point. Is it necessary to have the good bits about the company, then a section on the bad bits? Can they not be more integrated? For example, the algorithm competition was already mentioned earlier, so why not keep those bits together? Remember, readers don't always read Wikipedia start to finish. Many don't even get past the table of contents. It's misleading to mention one aspect (like the competition) but not to mention that there was a negative side of it until later

References

The references are missing a lot of information which is required to make the article verifiable. For example, online references should have title, date, website/publisher, retrieval date and where possible, author. Print sources need dates, title of work (eg. newspaper title), title of article
There are some dead links in the references
You need to make sure that all of the sources used are reliable. DO they have good reputations for fact checking? How do they get their information? Are they cited by other reliable sources? For example, what makes ecommerceandvideodistributiondvd.blogspot.com a reliable source?
There may be an over-reliance on Netflix itself as a source. Try to use secondary sources where possible

External links

Are all these links necessary? If they are reliable sources, can they be used as such? (eg. news articles) Why do we need to link to the online community?

General

Years shouldn't be linked (eg. 2010) It doesn't provide anything useful to the reader.
You have U.S. as well as USA. This should be consistent.
Also have a look at the automated peer reviewer

As you can see, there are quite a few issues to address. Some of the things I've mentioned apply throughout, not just to one section. It can be done though, and there is a lot of good content there. Please let me know if you have any questions.--Beloved Freak 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]