# Talk:Whedonesque.com

Some more suggestions before continuing: please please please read WP:HEAD and Wikipedia:MSH#Article titles. For structure, the article ideally will have these sections, in this order: History, Main features, Subsites (if applicable), Reception/Criticism (as appropriate), References, External links. Ideally, it should not focus soley on the site's features and contents, but its encyclopedic details and its relevance away from itself. Also, make sure to not diverge too much into stuff about Whedon rather than the site itself.AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's going to take me a bit to get to this, so I've reverted my edits for the time being. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dumping ground of found citations to Whedonesque from elsewhere relevant, to be removed as I add them to appropriate places in the article: Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.janeespenson.com/archives/00000454.php Jane credits Whedonesque.com for Pizza
http://comics.ign.com/articles/868/868021p1.html IGN quotes Scott Allie that Whedonesque will get sneak peeks of Buffy Tarot cards.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119699082174316559-p_75BiBgTo3A6vtuE4KAlqd_99E_20080106.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top Note in WSJ about whedonesque organizing writers' strike support.
http://www.wizarduniverse.com/041808nyccdhpanel.html Another industry site saying Buffy Tarot cards will be at whedonesque.com
http://www.darkhorse.com/zones/buffy/editor.php Scott Allie on reading Whedonesque.com to judge the fan reaction to Buffy/Satsu in 8.12
(http://www.drewgoddard.com/links.html) Writer Drew Goddard links to Whedonesque from his official website... at least according to Google cache.  Down at the moment.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/03/04/calendar/ca-whedon4 LA Times on Whedonesque WW announcement
http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/ NYT citing W on Brust Firefly novel.
http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/strikers-not-writing-but-still-blogging/#more-223 NYT on WGA strike blogs/pizza
http://seattlepi.com/movies/242784_browncoats30.html Seattle PI listing W as one of 7 Firefly-related blogs cited in getting Serenity made.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400152.html Washington Post picking up WW cancellation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/mar/15/mondaymediasection.usnews Caroline quoted in The Guardian re: fan site influences
USA Today has 9 separate references to Whedonesque on Pop Candy
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i942a6313d5bbee00e0e36f250ece4cd7 Hollywood Reporter story that Washington Post picked up.
Chicago Tribune has 5 featuresblogs posts which reference Whedonesque.
Papers and paper's blogs are reliable, personal blogs are not. miranda 06:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Understood.  The only personal blog that I planned to link to was Jane Espenson's--since she's a notable person connected to the site commenting about it.  Every source listed above won't necessarily be inserted, just the ones that serve as the best WP:RS to illustrate WP:N and augment what's already there. I stuck my previous work on the page into User:Jclemens/Scratch, where I plan on working on it before adding it back to mainspace--feel free to add that to your watchlist, I'd welcome your feedback on it as it develops, rather than finding out I've completely gone off the rails when I do put it back here. Jclemens (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Littler, Jim (2006-10-11). "Wonder Woman is a LonelyGirl!". ComicBookMovie.com. Retrieved 2008-05-12. -- removing this from the article. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A site logo and screenshot would be good for the infobox. 4chan is an article I've done some work on which could help in terms of layout, for infobox at least, and maybe on general layout.
Done, finally. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead could definitely be expanded. It could take more about how the site works, and go into a bit more detail on awards/Whedon's involvement/other stuff.
Ok, expanded it a bit.  Does that look better?  If so, I'll reorg the following text to cover the points made in the new lead. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no information about its history? Like, nothing on the site or anything? (My internet is very slow right now so I'm just typing everything I can think of.)
Not really, at least not that I've found so far.
The I in importance in the section header should be lowercased
"on topics ranging such as" - this prose needs work here...
Oh, agreed. I nuked it. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ref 12 doesn't need EW.com and Entertainment Weekly listed as publishers... just use the latter (and put it in italics per MOS:ITALICS)
Rolling Stone also needs italics
""The Best Strike Writing."[14]In addition" - need a space after the ref
"Posters to the site are usually referred to as "Whedonesquers"." - ref?
Couldn't find a RS reference.  Lots of other blogs refer to the term, so if I had to go SPS, I just picked the earliest usage I could find from the site itself. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That's probably fine. —Giggy 23:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The stuff in the reception section could definitley be prosed up... were there any comments made about the website in giving the prize, etc.? (Also, italics)
I dunno if there is any potential for expansion, but yeah... hopefully these help. Ping me if I don't reply; I've watchlisted but my watchlist is big. —Giggy 03:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Giggy, thanks for all that.  Fixed the small stuff, signified by the strikethrough, and will begin work on the bigger issues. Oh, and there's definitely room for expansion with some Dollhouse and Dr. Horrible coverage mentioning the site.  I just thought I'd solicit structural recommendations (i.e., do you think the sections should be reorganized?) before doing so.  Besides, once you point out errors to me, I'm good at incorporating the teaching in new edits. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit dificult to comment on current structure when there isn't really that much there, but if you make changes I'd be happy to critique them. —Giggy 09:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm done making changes for a while, so if you do get a chance to critique the changes, I'd welcome the feedback. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It's looking better. Still some stuff - prose on reception? Image for the infobox? —Giggy 01:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll get a screencap tonight.  What sort of prose would you like for the reception section?  It started as a place to catalogue the awards the site had received.  I don't see a reception section in 4chan--is there another page you'd recommend I look at for an example to follow?  Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right, and there aren't a great deal good website articles out there. I didn't really find anything that would help with this article... so looking at something totally different; Midtown Madness is an article I've been working on recently. The reception section there basically outlines what reviewers (in this case, those who presented the awards or otherwise commented on the site) have said about it, in a critical light. —Giggy 10:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What would you think about adding the reviews, narratively, into the appropriate history sections?  First few years, it's a fandom site, second few years people start to notice, currently site gets good exposure in the mainstream press. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no harm. If it doesn't work that great we can always revert. —Giggy 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, merge done.  Please take a gander at it and see if you find that an improvement. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(<--) A minor niggle; is it possible to iron out the one sentence paragraphs? Merge them with others or expand them - they don't look too flash as is. The article, however, is looking a lot better than when I first saw it! :-) —Giggy 06:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Merged one, expanded two... Looking ready for a run at GA to get some different eyes on it?  I really appreciate the iterative work you're doing on this.  Your turnaround time is great and your patience is remarkable. :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No harm in going for a GA nom and seeing what happens. You're welcome! —Giggy 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Look for fact tags which I have inserted.
I addressed the one by the time you posted this. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Watch your grammar:
Whedonesque is most well known outside of Whedon fandom for Whedon himself posting to the site. You are over emphasizing "most well known", try "well known" alone. You have other issues of this nature as well.
Switched a bunch of these types or phrases around in general copyediting.  Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
2007-08 should be 2007 through 2008 or similar wording. This problem is consistant across the article.
Changed. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You should not use things like #8, expand that out to "number eight".
Expanded.Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
In May 2008, EW selected Whedonesque as #8 on their list of "25 Essential Fansites",  .... Should perhaps be rewritten like In May 2008, EW selected Whedonesque as number eight on their top 25 list of fansites, .... no need to quote Essential Fansites. This problem is very consistant across the article, don't excesivly quote. Instead attempt to paraphrase the sources.
I've decreased this a bit, but the full quotes are really the only criticism extant in the article, and I don't want to lose that.  Given that rationale, have I gone far enough? Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Either link or do not link the dates. [[November 4]], [[1231]] or November 4, 1231. Pick one, and make it uniform across the whole article. The choice is totally up to you guys, just pick one and stick with over the whole article. See WP:DATE.
Delinked. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A suggestion on the external links section: Alexa ranking really does not belong there, nor does the Apple.com feed reader. Not everyone is using that operating system.
Removed. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Associated sites section should be rewritten or otherwise made not a list. Also the bolding here is rather guady and not something I'd expect to see in an encyclopedia article outside of the opening paragraph.
Done. Probably still needs to be expanded a bit. Your thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no points of view other then those telling the success of the website. I'm sure the site has some critisism somewhere. Don't forget to mention those.
What exists has already been placed into the article.  I've used quotes to highlight the less-flattering parts of reviews: "fellow Joss Whedon obsessives" and "a reservoir of material about anyone who's starred in (or, it would seem, breathed near) his nerd-magnet projects".  Beyond that, there's just no RS'ed criticism extant. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few of your paragraphs start with the word Whedonesque, try to switch it up with other words. To do this, just look at the leading sentences and swich the word order.
Reworded several of them, and not just paragraph-opening sentences. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The vast majority of your sources are websites, while I know that this is about a web site itself, it may be possible to find a few more mentions in print.
I can do that, but most of them will be redundant with recent news stories. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You should try to get one or two more headers in the article, at least a section on critisim of the site, perhaps another section on the software/technology the site uses, etc.
Criticism was addressed above, and per WP:CRITICISM separate criticim sections are deprecated. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There's really not much to say about the operating system and technology underneath--it's really not very important.  Is there a GA requirement to have a certain number of headers? Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is going to need a little work to get to GA status. When you think you have the article fixed for the problems I have mentioned above, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll take a second look and choose to pass/fail this article. Cheers! —— nixeagle 15:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, quick work I see :). Still a few concerns and replies to your questions above.

There is no requirement for X sections, however the fact that we only have "history" here (discounting the second section for reasons I'll make clear below) and no other aspects of the site. Part of GA is being comprehensive, which my suggestion for a few more sections comes from.  Perhaps I should have stated that more clearly. Apologies. Back to the point, does this site have a social impact? Cultural impact? Economic impact? Right now you just have a rundown of the various accolades the site has earned in chronological order. There has to be more to this site then that. If I'm wrong, I'm open to your pursuading me you have a comprehensive article.
The second section is more material for the external links section (link the two sites there if they are of interest to readers). You can include the small description for both in that section. As it stands I'm having a hard time seeing what that adds to my comprehension of the topic at hand. However those sites would be great additions to the links section.
I'm not 100% sure about every policy in the book, what I'm telling you here is knowledge I've gained since Dec 2005. In light of that, you are right about the criticism section. My suggestion then is to try to make the criticism a tad bit more clear in the article. I had a hard time realizing/seeing it, which is why I mentioned it.
Out of 43 sources, I'm counting 19 citations to the website itself, which is why I'm suggesting you look at your sources carefully and see what you can cite with secondary sources. Some things you won't be able to, but others you should be able to. In addition a few print/non online sources would be nice, but we are talking about an internet item, and I understand if print sources are hard/impossible to find.
Re-examine your use of quotes, look at this: "The Times notes that", implies authority. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Point out, note, observe. I would suggest replacing it with "The times says that ..." or "the times said that".
Make sure you don't use quotes in the place of italics for titles: "Click Critics: The Power of Fan Websites," should probably be Click Critics: The Power of Fan Websites,. If you choose to leave it in quotes, be sure to reverse the position of the ending quote and the comma. The comma belongs to the sentence you wrote, not the title.
—— nixeagle 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: the structure.  I reorganized it from an old schema per another editor's comments.  I've also gotten other feedback about different ways to organize the material.  I'm honestly struggling to provide the best view of this website: No one has seriously criticized it, it has no grand plans for the future, its hardware and technology are not particularly remarkable.  The story of Whedonesque is one of a website that's risen from obscurity to getting routinely quoted in the press--hence the chronological section, with associated coverage--some snarky, but nothing's horribly negative, some awards, but nothing truly monumental.  I absolutely want to provide the comprehensive coverage to GA standards, since there's obviously not enough depth to the topic to ever make FA--at least not this decade!
re: Offline sources.  I have access to ProQuest and EBSCOhost, and the former is where I got the Rolling Stone reference.  There appear to be four mentions to Whedonesque in Google Books.  I'll see if I can work them in tonight, but some of them look trivial, so it may end up looking kind of lame. :-)
Thanks for providing multi-stage feedback.  This would be my first GA, so I'm highly motivated to incorporate this and succeed. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, added some more material, specifically sought out to address the deficiencies.  I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Howdy! See if there is at all any way to find other areas this site has had an impact on. As things stand, the "history" section of the article is really the best part of your writing. This subject seems very narrow, its basically the history of the website with no detail of any impacts the site has had. I would have a look at other GA class articles about websites for an idea. I think the 4chan article is an "ok" example, note how it covers the impact of the site, and goes into more depth then just what the site has done. (The article is not a GA class article, but it does do what I think this article is lacking).
Again let me emphasize your best writing is contained in the "history" sections, and I think that is very good. Everything else appears to be tacked on for lack of a better word. The "Citations" section was not what I meant by use print sources. I'm sorry if I confused you, but by using print sources, I meant using them within the body of your history. If I confused you, that is my fault alone.
Finally "Associated sites" really does not belong where it is. The content in there is best placed in the external links section. "m.Whedonesque.com" should go in the external links section. If it were to remain in that section, the grammar around it would need to be improved from "even more minimalist", to something else.
My suggestion to you is this: move those print sources that are useful to the history, to that section. Get rid of the associated sites section. Create an additional section on "impact". It has to have had an impact somewhere, no site is a blackhole. (well... sans spammer sites that just spit ads at you ;) ).
Do your best to address what I have mentioned, and depending on the situation I'll choose to continue the hold, pass it off to a second reviewer or pass the article for GA. Good luck! —— nixeagle 02:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This will be my final set of comments on this article, if I'm still unable to come to a choice to pass or fail this article I will pass it on to another reviewer. You have done well with the new section additions, but only two of the 3 show a real tangible impact on the world. The third section (2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike) is very well done. It shows what impact this particular website has had. The second subsection in impact is also fairly well done. The first section, about books and academic papers may not belong where it is. Its not really an "impact", its more or less just listing where it has been mentioned. Perhaps if that is all those sources are being used for, it may be better off to remove those sources, or use the sources to attribute things elsewhere.

You see also section contains two entries, perhaps think of either encorporating those entries into the article, or find a few more relevant links.
You may wish to consider expanding the lead to two sections, incorporating small parts of the imact section into the lead. (especially about the writers guild strike).
Thanks again for your comments, Nixeagle.  I've expanded the impact section you found weak, expanded the lead, and added a bit more content elsewhere that cropped up in my labors. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


### Automated article checker
Finally I'm going to ask a small favor of you, I'm in the process of creating a better automated article checker tool, please go over this output and use it to improve the article where you can and tell me where the tool is just plain wrong. Details at User:nixeagle/ArticleChecker. You are not required to do this for GA, and you are free to refuse to do so. (I don't really care beyond getting some input).

WP:AVOID issues (not 100% accurate, just a guideline to problems):
Per WP:AVOID WP:PEACOCK WP:WEASEL the following words should be carefully considered. This is not a 100% accurate test, but should indicate potential problems.
In =Whedonesque.com= the following words should be evaluated: associated.
Reasonable Associated is a good word to flag, but I think it's a reasonably good word in the lead.  In context: "as well as the careers of cast and crew associated with Whedon projects."  That includes people who have acted or crewed on Whedon shows, but also the careers of folks who have been cast in upcoming shows.  For example, Serenity's Chiwetel Ejiofor is a frequent topic, as is Tahmoh Penikett, who has been cast in Dollhouse, but no shows have aired as of this writing.
In ===Origin: 2002 through 2003=== the following words should be evaluated: top.
Somewhat Reasonable in context: "it was cited as one of two top Buffy Internet sites in an article commemorating the show's end."  Not hard work to check, but the citation directly supports that.
In ===Recognition: 2007 through 2008=== the following words should be evaluated: Best, controversy, relationship.
All reasonable.  The first is citation-supported, the second is in the name of another Wikipedia article, and the third one could be swapped out with another word.  Come to think of it, relationship is really a shortcut to avoid having to discuss the project at length.
Thanks —— nixeagle 21:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem.  It certainly seems like a useful tool, but top may be a false positive a lot of the time. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/187953  Deals with Season 8, mentions W.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07152007/entertainment/hot_list_entertainment_raakhee_mirchandani_and_maxine_shen.htm W mentioned re: Runaways.
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/216228 On Dua Khalil.
http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/strikers-not-writing-but-still-blogging/ More strike stuff
http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/01/09/joss-whedon-to-direct-episode-of-the-office/ The Office rumor confirmed at W.
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/8276/sing-along-with-buffy/ Sing-a-long ref.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/hipclicks/2002-07-17-hipclicks.htm New earliest reference!!!
Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the substantial suggestions by previous reviewer User:Nixeagle and poring over the article, my only complaint with the thing is that it's beginning to look over-referenced. You pass, excellent job. A big thank you to Nixeagle as well, whose criticism drove this article from Good to REALLY Good. I don't know if there are any relevant projects with A-class review systems, but the current page looks as if it could pass one pretty easily. --erachima talk 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review and kind words. Jclemens (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

http://nymag.com/movies/features/53786/

It seems the article was updated majorly only once after its GAN, in 2009; if there is any new information pertaining to the past 2 years it should be added. ClayClayClay 07:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)