Talk:Da share z0ne

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Da share z0ne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh man, Brandt Luke Zorn, I am so excited to review another of your Weird Twitter articles. I'll get this done within the next day or two. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, life and work intervened but I'm getting rolling now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A few comments

• Is there a better reference for the start date than herb.com? I'm not going to hold the GA pass on that basis but it seems weird to be using a medical marijuana company website as a source if there's anything better.

• I switched to the Uloop article, which gives a more precise date anyway. Most sources don't mention when da share z0ne started, and the Newsweek article incorrectly says the account began in 2016 (the Twitter page itself shows that it started in September 2015).

• The first sentence is awkward, can it be rephrased? Something like "Da share z0ne, which first began posting in 2015, is known for..." maybe?

• I split the first sentence in two. Let me know what you think of the new wording.

• Do they actually use "dozens of tacky fonts in a single image"?

• Good catch, that would be a little extreme even by da share z0ne's standards. The source said the account's posts draw from dozens of different fonts, but not within the same image every time. I reworded it to "multiple".

• Skeletons don't get mentioned until a quote nearly at the end of the visual aesthetic paragraph but they're a major part of the schtick

• Double check—I believe the word "skeleton" is mentioned three times in the article body before that point, including the first time that the article "skeleton (undead)" is pipe-linked. —BLZ · talk 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, this comment was poorly worded in the first place. My intent was to say that skeletons don't get mentioned in the visual aesthetic sub-section until the end. However, I re-read it just now and realized that it works fine even without that - as you said, there's enough skeletons in the preceding section that it probably doesn't need repeating.

The checklist

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead is a good summary of the article. Aside from the small quibbles above, the writing is consistently clear and fluid.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Again aside from the minor complaint about citing the date to Herb.co, but considering that the start date is hardly controversial I'm not that worried.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the concept without getting bogged down in too many details of memeing.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There's not much criticism of da share z0ne in the article, but I did some googling, and that's because there's basically no criticism of da share z0ne out there.

   Thanks for searching for that. I've found that when journalists write about an internet phenomenon like da share z0ne—especially internet phenomenon as niche or idiosyncratic as da share z0ne—they're usually writing to introduce it to a mainstream audience, justifying why it's good and explaining its oddball qualities to people unfamiliar with it. If an internet phenomenon is no good, the likely response is to ignore it rather than write about why it's bad. After all, why waste time writing an article whose pitch is "Hey mainstream audience, this quirky thing you've never heard of? Well, it's bad." We may someday see a contrarian negative take on da share z0ne published in a reliable source, and if that happens I pledge to include it in the article. —BLZ · talk 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No concerns.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Although there are three non-free images, in my opinion it complies with the minimal use provision because each image depicts a different aspect of da share z0ne - the profile image akin to a brand logo, the example meme to depict the visual style, and the card game image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Aside from the minor quibbling above, I think this is largely good to go. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

   @Premeditated Chaos: I've addressed your points above, let me know if there's anything else I can do! —BLZ · talk 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

   Article looks great with the points addressed, happy to pass this as another weird Twitter GA. Well done! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

   Interesting. On first read, I really thought it failed NPOV and was surprised to see a GA stamp on it. But I ventai LG wing quibble. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

linkedin?

is it actually on linkedin? i can't find it there nor any mention of it being on there anywhere else — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.232.35 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources listed here on Wikipedia or anywhere online, so I removed this statement. Aveaoz (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)