Talk:Polygon (website)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversies

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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polygon (website)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 14:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Czar (talk · contribs) 17:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this...expect it to be over within this week. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Looks good, only found a few issues at first glance.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article passes. 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• 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
• Criteria 2b: I've cn tagged accordingly three instances where it's required. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 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 okay czar ♔ 18:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

I added the citations for argument's sake, but I disagree with your interpretation of the criteria czar ♔ 19:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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 criticisms of the site. 124.171.70.238 (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

References

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)

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:

1. 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".
   
   
2. 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."
   
   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>
   
   
3. 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. In May 2018, Polygon launched the YouTube series "Brand Slam", in which brand mascots battle against one another."
   
   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)

References

• 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)
  • @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. It was named one of the "10 gaming podcasts every gaming nerd should know" by The Daily Dot in 2018. In May 2018, Polygon launched the YouTube series "Brand Slam", in which brand mascots battle against one another.

References

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>

Thanks again. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

@Lordtobi: Thank you for updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)