Talk:.tv/GA2

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Sohom (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 04:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs) 01:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to this over this week. Sohom (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will quick-fail this nomination since there have been exactly zero edits since the previous GA nomination failure and effectively nothing has been done to address the previous reviewer's concerns. There is a ton of writing out on the internet about Tuvalu's attempts at preserving their history through the use of the .tv domain and how they are trying to turn into a digital nation. None of this is mentioned in the article. The significance of twitch.tv and its impact on the surge of the popularity of the domain gets a mere two lines. The dot-com boom that led to the initial surge is not mentioned at all.

Besides these issues, there are subtle WP:SYNTH problems, the article mentions the fact that The domain contains the sites of news services, including Fox News and MSNBC., however, the source says This strategy has paid off so far: with 9.36 billion hours viewed in 2018, Twitch has begun to match the viewership numbers of cable news networks such as Fox News and MSNBC.. Similarly, the article also states In response to the question of what would happen if a nation-state would cease to exist, the ICANN board stated... whereas the supplied source does not mention Tuvalu even once. Additionally, there is an over-reliance on primary sources, GoDaddy Registrar, Google Webmasters, and memos from the Tuvalu government and Icann are all primary sources, which should be preferably avoided. In a similar vein, domainnamewire.com does not appear to be an RS and should also not be relied upon. Sohom (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.