Talk:Polygon (website)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)[reply]

Nominator:

Czar (talk · contribs) 17:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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.
    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
    copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
    :
    B. Images are provided if possible and are
    suitable captions
    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Article passes. 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


Comments

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
♔ 18:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
I added the citations for argument's sake, but I disagree with your interpretation of the criteria czar 
♔ 19:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply
]

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)[reply]

@
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
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)[reply
]
@
♔ 04:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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 [1][2][3] criticisms of the site. 124.171.70.238 (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://deepfreeze.it/outlet.php?o=polygon
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syi354YUE04
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPChLbxSle8

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)[reply]

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.[1][2]"

    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.[3] In May 2018, Polygon launched the YouTube series "Brand Slam", in which brand mascots battle against one another.[4]"

    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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Poynter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ISSN 0162-8968
    . Retrieved July 30, 2018.
  3. ^ Knoop, Joseph (July 16, 2018). "10 gaming podcasts every gaming nerd should know". The Daily Dot. Retrieved July 30, 2018.
  4. Advertising Age
    . Retrieved July 30, 2018.
The website's flagship podcast, called The Polygon Show, launched in 2017 and discusses gaming and culture.[1] It was named one of the "10 gaming podcasts every gaming nerd should know" by The Daily Dot in 2018.[2] In May 2018, Polygon launched the YouTube series "Brand Slam", in which brand mascots battle against one another.[3]

References

  1. ^ Cohen, David (October 3, 2017). "Vox Media Will Begin Livestreaming Circuit Breaker, The Polygon Show on Twitter". Adweek. Retrieved August 21, 2018.
  2. ^ Knoop, Joseph (July 16, 2018). "10 gaming podcasts every gaming nerd should know". The Daily Dot. Retrieved July 30, 2018.
  3. Advertising Age
    . Retrieved July 30, 2018.

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)[reply]

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.
✉) 19:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Lordtobi: Thank you for updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Design section

The site was programmed to use HTML5 standards with a responsive design that adapts to the screen dimensions of laptops, tablets, and smartphones.[2] This is partially to remove need for a separate mobile version.[31] — This is, literally, pointless information that can be said about nearly every single website that has been updated within the past decade.  Nixinova   T   C   03:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factual informative descriptions reverted

Someone reverted the change that had expanded the old description of the site (“in 2012”) with a description of what the site now covers. The reverter called the edit “personal research” yet millions of articles contain the same kind of true obvious factual observational statements, for example that the sky is blue or that the band Nirvana “Characterized by their punk aesthetic, Nirvana's fusion of pop melodies with noise, combined with their themes of abjection and social alienation […]”

The fact is Polygon’s bulk of material now (today) is coverage of press tours and coverage of marketing (trailers, etc) of soon-to-be released studio shows, studio movies, and videogames, and editorial-like articles written entirely from the messaging/perspective of studio reps on a press tour. So why would the edit, observable from Polygon’s front page at any time, be reverted while misleading statements about the sites “intentions” in 2012 (over 10 years ago) continue to inaccurately define the subject and the entire rest of this wiki? RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygon_(website)&oldid=1221051443"