Talk:The Wall Street Journal/Archive 2

message: This article has been passed as a Good Article. I thought it was comprehensive, well-written, and well structured. I think that more citations in the history and editorial sections would do the article good (so keep that in mind :]), but I thought that it was sourced well enough to pass. Cheers! --Keitei (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: All the newspaper articles don't have what the price per issue is. How much does the WSJ cost per day? --70.111.218.254 02:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A difficult question to answer. As I recall, the Journal's price varies from location to location. Here in New England, it's $1.00 per copy -- but that's a recent increase from (if memory serves) 75 cents. I seem to recall seeing the Journal sold for $1.00 in other parts of the country years ago. Does anyone have a list? Wiki Wistah 17:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Cost 

message: I was surprised to see nothing included about the A-Hed, the often quirky stories that are usually in column four on the front page.   BlankVerse 09:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "A-Hed" 

message: What does this mean? --Gbleem 16:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's meaningless padding. You can have the pleasure of deleting it. Nbauman 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "and other related things" 

message: Is it possible to link to WSJ.com as a reference when you need a log-in to read articles on the site? JMS1225 20:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'd do in that place would be to create the link, but provide enough information in the citation that someone could find the article in the print edition, as many big-city libraries carry WSJ on microfiche. As for WSJ's Web-only content ... I guess a pay-to-play citation is better than no citation at all, but the best practice is to find something available free, if you can. ``` W i k i W i s t a h W a s s a p ``` 15:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing the WSJ as a reference 

message: The Wall Street Journal is a part of Dow Jones, not the other way around. If we're going to write about the Dow Jones take over, I suggest the portion about that be moved to Dow Jones - and condensed heavily on this page. This article is about the WSJ, not about the business behind what a) has not happened yet and b) does not JUST involve one aspect of a multi-billion dollar company. 198.45.19.38 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of Murdoch's motivation, the fact of the matter is that News Corp. bought (really, "has agreed to buy") Dow Jones & Company, not just the WSJ. The takeover certainly ought to be mentioned on this page -- just like all newspapers' pages mention their owners -- but the real nitty-gritty, blow-by-blow stuff, if it's on Wikipedia at all, ought to be on the DJ and News Corp. articles. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 04:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dow Jones Takeover 

message: :Image:Wall Street Journal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Wall Street Journal.jpg 

message: Several edits today. I sat down with the August 1 edition of the paper -- the edition that reported on the News Corp. sale -- and incorporated what information I could glean, plus made general copyedits along the way. I kept this edit box open throughout so I could catalogue the changes, in case anyone wants to discuss them. Aside from copyedits and new material, here are the other changse:
* Split several sections into subsections to break up what was an intimidating block of gray text (not unlike the way the old six-col. WSJ appeared to this writer, watching Dad read it after dinner ... but enough digression).
* Infobox: changed "Narrow broadsheet" to "Broadsheet". I realize the paper's thinner than it once was, but it's no thinner than most of the other papers classified as "broadsheet" on Wikipedia. "Broadsheet"  alone is enough; otherwise we'll have to go to each non-tab newspaper with a tape-measure and subclassify "narrow", "medium" and "wide" page webs.
*News Corp. takeover: Deleted The Business citation -- it's a dead link, and th details of a biz journalism scoop aren't really important to the story of the WSJ. Important dates are the date of the takeover bid (May 2) and the date of the acceptance of the bid (Aug. 1). ALSO: We don't need two references for Murdoch taking over DJ. I kept the BBC citation, which appeared to be a more in-depth story. ALSO: Took out a few more citations that were dead links.
* Opinions: Reunited "editorial line" and "media bias" under one heading because they're related, but broke out several items from "editorial line".
*Notable reporting: Changed inline citations to footnotes. Reordered subsections chronologically.
Wikipedia informs me that the page is now 30 kB. If this presents a problem to someone, let's discuss how to trim. ``` W i k i W i s t a h W a s s a p ``` 03:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and history added