Talk:Girl Online
 | A fact from Girl Online appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 December 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Criticism section removed
editI get worried whenever the person who creates an article starts taking steps to defend NOT the content of the article, but the person/ place/ etc. that the article is about. If an independent uninvolved editor had removed the "criticism" section claiming whatever reasons, fine, but for this to be done by Nikthestunned, it smacks of bias towards the subject. What is "UNDUE and not clear what the situation is" about it? It is all over the internet in all sorts of very reliable sources, even Penguin has issued a statement. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- At the time of reverting, the only source saying anything other than that she "did not write the book on her own" was the Telegraph article which sourced a Sunday Times article for it's information. That same article was the source for a Daily Mail article stating that the Publisher "did not confirm that the sales success was ghostwritten" - so I removed it. If you find more sources which back either side then I've no problem with that section being expanded properly. The reason I moved it from "Criticism" to "Release" was per MOS:NOVELS. Nikthestunned 21:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Can clearly be expanded given sources now available I see but still don't know where in the article it should go. Nikthestunned 21:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Nikthestunned. I'd say it would go below release - either as 4 or 3.2. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Novel articles don't tend to have a "criticism" / "controversy" section though - should it be in it's own section , or part of release? (In this case it's criticism of the author not the novel which complicates matters further). Looking at some FAs, The Hunger Games has a section in "reception" but that seems quite specific to that case. Maybe it should be under a header like "authorship" or something, in "Background"? Will start looking at sources anyway I guess. Nikthestunned 10:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hope this helps, Nikthestunned:
- Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Afraid not, as none of those articles have undergone any form of peer review etc, which is where I'd tend to look for such things. Guess I'll add something anyways, cheers. Nikthestunned 13:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I've given it a go. I think my main problem here is with the misleading headlines... Telegraph: "NOVEL WAS GHOSTWRITTEN" in headline, "HAD HELP WITH NOVEL" in body. Which do I use? Clickbait makes a wiki editors job no easier! Nikthestunned 14:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Afraid not, as none of those articles have undergone any form of peer review etc, which is where I'd tend to look for such things. Guess I'll add something anyways, cheers. Nikthestunned 13:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Novel articles don't tend to have a "criticism" / "controversy" section though - should it be in it's own section , or part of release? (In this case it's criticism of the author not the novel which complicates matters further). Looking at some FAs, The Hunger Games has a section in "reception" but that seems quite specific to that case. Maybe it should be under a header like "authorship" or something, in "Background"? Will start looking at sources anyway I guess. Nikthestunned 10:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Nikthestunned. I'd say it would go below release - either as 4 or 3.2. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Can clearly be expanded given sources now available I see but still don't know where in the article it should go. Nikthestunned 21:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Girl Online. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140724195313/http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/152543/Girl-Online-YouTube-Sensation-Zoe-Zoella-Sugg-To-Become-Novelist-After-Signing-Two-Book-Deal to http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/152543/Girl-Online-YouTube-Sensation-Zoe-Zoella-Sugg-To-Become-Novelist-After-Signing-Two-Book-Deal
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)