Talk:Night Vale Presents

Comments on structure

Saw this was up as a GA nomination and I'm not going to take it, but I do have some comments. There's currently not really any sourced information about the production company. If some exists then the article would be better presented chronologically, filling links between the sections in with comments like "In 2017, the CEO said in an interview that they were interested in expanding into X genre podcasts." Rather than partitioned subsections, it would work better as paragraphs of prose with chronological details, and perhaps a table at the bottom of all of the shows. If such details don't exist, and there isn't really any commentary about the company and the podcast series then this topic may be better of as List of Night Vale Presents podcasts. Then it'd be featured list rather than GA status to aim for. — Bilorv (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a production company, it's a podcast collective, so there isn't really much information about the business decisions behind what's published compared to the podcasts they release. starsandwhales (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the first sentence, Night Vale Presents, formerly known as Commonplace Books, is a production company, needs changing then. If there's not much coverage of Night Vale Presents directly then I think that this would work better as a list. — Bilorv (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Night Vale Presents/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Babegriev (talk · contribs) 14:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Start of Review

Hi all contributors, I will be conducting the GA review for this article. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page, or on this thread.

Thank you and all the best, Babegriev (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Assessment

Lead Section

The lead section of this article is written well and summarizes the subject of the article in an professional and candid manner. That being said, there are elements included in the lead which indicate there will be elaboration later in the article, however, these topics are never expanded upon. Most importantly, the history of Night Vale Presents and the functional structure of the company. The partnership with Public Radio Exchange is interesting, and could also be covered, however, is not absolutely essential to the article. As the article expands (presumably) the Lead section will likely have to expand with it, but at current, it performs it's job well at an appropriate length for the article's contents.

Addition of History / Overview section

Per criterion 3 of good articles, the article is supposed to have a broad coverage of the major aspects of the subject. While many elements of Night Vale Present's history is included very briefly in the lead, and again in the Completed Shows section, there is very little information in this article about how the company came to be. This information is not lacking in terms of sources, as plenty of detail on the company's history and formation can be found with a quick google search. A more experienced Wikipedian will likely be able to find many additional sources and outlets of information in that regard. Additionally, I could not find a source (cited or from my own looking) indicating the former name of this company was "Commonplace Books". Given the lack of information on the earlier days of the company, the article is not eligible for GA status at this time.

Additional Content on Functional Structure

Like above, there is a significant deficiency of content in this article regarding the functional structure of the company. It was after a day into this review that I actually realized this was a (somewhat) independent production company, and not a Night Vale podcast of it's own. Perhaps this could be best manifested by outlining the roles of different key figures in the company (Cranor, Fink, Bashwiner or Knapp), or explaining how shows are added to the network. At current, the focus on the article is the shows which it produces, but not the production company proper. As a result, a reader is likely to be confused by the lack of explanation of the function and structure of the production company.

Lack of Illustrations

Criterion 6 of GAs require illustrations as available. While free images may be unavailable for this, looking at the other Night Vale podcast articles, the use of logos is considered fair use. Therefore, it would be appropriate to include an image of the Night Vale Presents logo as it appears on their website in order to better identify the company. Additionally, while it is not directly related to Night Vale Presents, there are several free images on Wikimedia Commons for Welcome to Night Vale, which could illustrate that section of the article. As an aside, when illustrating the article, please ensure they are properly captioned before nominating again as that is required under 6b.

Overall Thoughts and Conclusion

At this time, this article is not in a condition to qualify for good article status. Upon first impression, it appeared to be a very detailed list of Night Vale Presents podcasts, rather than an article about Night Vale Presents. My biggest suggestion would be to ensure that the focus of the article is on the production company, and not the shows they produce. There are many areas to expand this article (e.g. origins, history, functionality, notability/press coverage, Partnership with PRX, etc). While the descriptions of shows are useful, many of them already have their own articles, and when listed on this article should relate to their importance to the production company, rather than the podcasts' importance in and of itself.

Thank you to all the contributors who have gotten the article to where it is now. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this review.

All the very best, Babegriev (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary of Review Results

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Reviewer Comments: Prose are written clearly and fluently in the native language of the wiki. Content is professional and encyclopedic. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Reviewer Comments: No violations of MOS It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): Reviewer Comments: Unremarkable. b (citations to reliable sources): Reviewer Comments: Cannot find source indicating the name "commonplace books" as a former name of this company. c (OR): Reviewer Comments: There is no evidence of Original Research per WP:OR d (copyvio and plagiarism): Reviewer Comments: All sources are properly cited. Instaces of high confidence on Earwig's Copyvio is as a result of limited content in article. No evidence plagiarism or copyright violations. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Reviewer Comments: This article fails to cover sufficient breadth and depth of content, especially in regards to history and function. See detailed comments. b (focused): Reviewer Comments: Focus of the article is on the shows it produces, rather than the company proper. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Reviewer Comments: The content in this article thus far is written impartially and encyclopedically. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Reviewer Comments: Article is stable, no notable edit wars. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Reviewer Comments: Article is under-illustrated given the availability of images. See detailed comments. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Reviewer Comments: N/A as per 6a
Overall: Pass/Fail: Reviewer Comments: See 3 and 6 above.
· · ·

Thanks! starsandwhales (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)