This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major
websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
Should a controversies section be included to detail, for example, the SimCity review score or the alleged $750,000 sponsership deal from Microsoft? CaptainPedge |
Talk |
Guestbook 23:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Any major controversies may be better explained in the context of the site's history rather than its own section, which could be a magnet for junk. These controversies would also need abundant coverage in reliable secondary sources to be notable enough for inclusion in the article. czar♔ 23:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Lead section: "included the editors-in-chief of three gaming sites." - Why not specify which gaming sites here?Y(done it myself 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC))
History: "The team works virtually in places including..." - I'm not sure I follow the meaning (or need) of this word here...please explain? Y
Thanks for the review. I've never needed to add citations for the types of facts for which you tagged—what part of 2b are you referencing? Also mid-sentence refs
should be okayczar
♔ 18:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
First one ("Bankoff considered...") and second ("They sought to set their content apart...") are opinions and
WP:LIKELY, and the last one is also a major fact. Since LIKELY is subjective, I'm sure you don't mind adding those inlines. Of course, mid sentences refs are fine...personally, I just do it for cosmetic reasons or when I feel it interrupts the flow (so don't worry, nothing to do with this review). Sincerely,
Ugog Nizdast (
talk) 19:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I added the citations for argument's sake, but I disagree with your interpretation of the criteria czar
♔ 19:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I know that you mentioned in your edit summary that you have more review notes to come. Would you mind leaving the review open until the end of the month? I'll be out of town for the next week and moving the week after that, so I will disappear for a while if I'm doing it right. czar
♔ 03:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Maybe I was being too strict with 2b. If this comes up again in future, I'll consult with my GA mentor. Anyway, now everything is fine, all that remains is two criteria and that I'll check later today. I think if all goes well, the review will get over within 24 hours since this is a short article and you've done a good job, there's probably hardly anything left to be done from your side. But even otherwise, it's fine....I'll keep it open until you notify me here. -
Ugog Nizdast (
talk) 09:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Czar: Okay, it seemed silly to keep this review pending for a month just for that tiny comment. This article passes, good job.
Outside this review, I have a question. What's the basis of adding the names
Kotaku or Polygon itself in italics? I'm quite sure the former doesn't usually be italicized. Other example would be
Rock, Paper, Shotgun, italics is only for magazines/journals/newspapers. So should Polygon be written like this? -
Ugog Nizdast (
talk) 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Ugog Nizdast, thanks! Yes,
WP:ITALICS, which says: Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized. So while Kotaku and Polygon are news sites, the question is whether Giant Bomb and IGN count, as they're somewhat closer to networks than news sources (a different conversation). czar
♔ 04:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Criticisms
Since the section does not exist, I would like to make a start. Unfortunately, I have neither the time or experience to do so, but have found several [1][2][3] criticisms of the site.
124.171.70.238 (
talk) 09:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Why even care? Is just another worthless click-bait site, it will be dead in no time. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
181.114.66.85 (
talk) 16:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Improvements for consideration
Resolved
Hello! On behalf of
Vox Media, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I'd like to suggest a few improvements to this Wikipedia article. I acknowledge this article has been promoted to "good" status and has therefore been vetted by the volunteer community for quality. However, the article was promoted back in 2014, so I think a few updates may be appropriate. I don't edit the main space directly, and I'm seeking editors to consider these improvements and update the article appropriately:
There are 6 times Vox Media is referred to as simply "Vox". The preference to abbreviate is understandable, but in this case, might actually confuse readers. Vox Media owns
Vox (website), so readers may be confused when an article mentions both "Vox" and "Vox Media" throughout. If editors agree some disambiguation would be helpful, "Vox" should be changed to "Vox Media" in the intro's last sentence, 4 times in "History", and once in "Business".
Currently, the "History" section has the following sentence: "The team works remotely from places including Philadelphia, New York, West Virginia, San Francisco, Sydney, London, and Austin, though Vox Media is headquartered in Washington, D.C." This is not entirely correct. Vox Media is headquartered in both New York and Washington, D.C., per
this source. I propose updating the sentence to the following: "The team works remotely from places including Philadelphia, West Virginia, San Francisco, Sydney, London, and Austin, though Vox Media is headquartered in New York City and Washington, D.C.[1][2]"
The "Poynter" reference is defined in the existing article, and here's markup for the Inc. magazine article, if helpful: <ref name="inc.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.inc.com/associated-press/digital-media-hub-vox-valued-at-1b-as-nbcuniversal-invests.html|title=Digital Media Hub Vox Valued at $1B as NBCUniversal Invests|work=[[Inc. (magazine)|Inc.]]|accessdate=July 30, 2018|issn=0162-8968}}</ref>
The "Content" section could be updated by adding mention of the website's podcast (The Polygon Show) and YouTube series ("Brand Slam"). I propose the following addition: "The website's podcast, called The Polygon Show, was named one of the "10 gaming podcasts every gaming nerd should know" by The Daily Dot in 2018.[3] In May 2018, Polygon launched the YouTube series "Brand Slam", in which brand mascots battle against one another.[4]"
Following is markup for the Daily Dot and Advertising Age sources: <ref name="Knoop">{{cite news |last1=Knoop |first1=Joseph |title=10 gaming podcasts every gaming nerd should know |url=https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/gaming-podcasts/ |accessdate=July 30, 2018 |work=[[The Daily Dot]] |date=July 16, 2018}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite journal|work=[[Advertising Age]]|url=http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/polygon-s-brand-slam-proves-brands-connect-gamers/313444/|title=Marketers' Mascots Pummel Each Other to Submission in Polygon's 'Brand Slam'|first=Jessica|last=Wohl|date=May 9, 2018|accessdate=July 30, 2018}}</ref>
Is an editor willing to review these 3 requests and update the article accordingly? I think they are fairly straightforward, but of course I'm happy to address questions or concerns here. Thanks for your consideration!
Inkian Jason (
talk) 19:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)reply
References
^Cite error: The named reference Poynter was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Hey @
Inkian Jason, thanks for getting in touch. Most of the proposed changes seem pretty uncontroversial, but what I feel is missing is an introduction for The Polygon Show. Presently, the sentence states that there is a podcase by that and that it received an award, but possibly it should first be mentioned what kind of podcast it is and when it was started. It'd be great if you could find a source for that and add the information to your proposal, placing the received award into a second sentence. Regards.
Lordtobi (
✉) 18:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Lordtobi: Thanks for reviewing. Sure! I found
this source, so how about updating the proposed text to the following:
The website's flagship podcast, called The Polygon Show, launched in 2017 and discusses gaming and culture.[1] It was named one of the "10 gaming podcasts every gaming nerd should know" by The Daily Dot in 2018.[2] In May 2018, Polygon launched the YouTube series "Brand Slam", in which brand mascots battle against one another.[3]
If this source and text is appropriate, here's markup for the first inline citation:
<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cohen |first1=David |title=Vox Media Will Begin Livestreaming Circuit Breaker, The Polygon Show on Twitter |journal=[[Adweek]] |date=October 3, 2017 |url=https://www.adweek.com/digital/vox-media-livestreaming-circuit-breaker-the-polygon-show-twitter/ |accessdate=August 21, 2018}}</ref>
Cool, good job! I've implemented the changes like you asked, though applied a small rewording to the locations sentence, since there was no contradicition. Cheers.
Lordtobi (
✉) 19:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)reply
The site was programmed to use HTML5 standards with a responsive design that adapts to the screen dimensions of laptops, tablets, and smartphones.[2] This is partially to remove need for a separate mobile version.[31] — This is, literally, pointless information that can be said about nearly every single website that has been updated within the past decade. NixinovaTC 03:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Factual informative descriptions reverted. What does the site primarily publish/cover TODAY, right now? (not 12 years ago)
Someone reverted the change that had expanded the old description of the site (a description that is over 12 years ol now) with a description of what the site now covers. The reverter called the edit “personal research” yet millions of articles contain the same kind of true obvious factual observational statements, for example that the sky is blue or literally every Plot Synopsis of every movie and TV show page plus the description of every videogame on wikipedia.org. (Or for example, the wiki page for the band Nirvana “Characterized by their punk aesthetic, Nirvana's fusion of pop melodies with noise, combined with their themes of abjection and social alienation […]”
The fact is Polygon’s bulk of material now (today) is coverage of press tours, product announcements by publishers, and coverage of marketing (trailers, etc) of soon-to-be released studio shows, studio movies, and videogames, and editorial-like articles written entirely from the messaging/perspective of studio reps on a press tour. So why would the edit, observable from Polygon’s front page at any time, be reverted while misleading statements about the sites “intentions” in 2012 (over 10 years ago) continue to inaccurately define the subject and the entire rest of this wiki?
RandomEditor6772314 (
talk) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The person who posted "See: Original Research [link policy]" is confused and wrong since the above discussion clearly refers to millions of articles that are built from non-controversial factual observation by the writer, with no citations given and not demanded by would-be-editors either.