Wikipedia:Peer review/Internet forum/archive3

Internet forum

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get further comments now that it has been improved.

Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 15:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Quickie:[reply]

Easily the biggest problem with the article is that it really needs referencing. I understand that this is a problem because of the topic, but it simply must be done. Especially the History section.
Some forums consider posts consisting solely of: Thank you., I love it. – or similar phrases – spam. Does the article really need this? Otherwise it sould be said differently, and not spaced as it is-almost independant of the paragraph.
There are several dab links, see here.

OK, there you go. ResMar 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Awadewit

Large sections of this article are unreferenced. I would suggest starting a search for references at Google Scholar. See, for example, this search on "internet forum history", which turned up some promising-looking sources.

I think that the organization of this article could be improved.

The subsections on "troll", "sock puppet", "spamming", "double posting", and "word censor" appear before the basic description of the "forum structure". Would these perhaps work better later? If one doesn't know what a forum is', grasping the idea of troll will be difficult until one understands the basic idea, I think.
The "Common features" section seems oddly named and arranged to me. Could the section be renamed "Security and markup" and some of the subsections moved? For example, could "Private message", "Emoticon", and "Poll" be moved to "Discussion", as those are really more related to the way people interact on the forum?

I'm wondering if more information on security needs to be added to the article. How do administrators protect these sites?

I'm curious if any forums have been "destroyed" by advertising, the way some usenet forums were.

The "History" section needs to include a clearer timeline. I thought internet forums would include usenet, but apparently not. It would be good to clearly distinguish between the early forms of community discussion like that and the internet forum in this section.

I would also suggest adding a section that describes the variety of internet forums available, perhaps highlighting the largest and most active. These are briefly mentioned in the "History" section, but not really described.

I would also suggest adding a section on the emergence of language unique to internet forums or at least a section describing how users talk to each other on these forums. The "emoticons" subsection is a good start, but there is much more to say on this front. The "History" section hints at the use of "internet slang", but I think this can be explored in greater depth.

In general, the writing in the article is wordy and there are lots of one-sentence paragraphs. Try to reduce the redundancy in the prose and integrate the one-sentence paragraphs. Here is an analysis of one paragraph:

When rules are broken several steps are commonly taken. First a warning is usually given; this is commonly in the form of a private message but recent development has made it possible for it to be integrated into the software. Subsequently, if the act is ignored and warnings do not work, the member is – usually – first exiled from the forum for a number of days. Denying someone access to the site is called a ban (as in "you have been banished"). Bans can mean the person can no longer log in or even view the site anymore. If the offender, after the warning sentence, repeats the offense, another ban is given, usually this time a longer one. Continuous harassment of the site eventually leads to a permanent ban. However, in most cases this simply means the account is locked. In extreme cases where the offender – after being permanently banned – creates another account and continues to harass the site, administrators will apply an IP ban (this can also be applied at the server level): if the IP is static, the machine of the offender is prevented from accessing the site. In some extreme circumstances, IP range bans or country bans can be applied; however, this is usually for political, licensing or other reasons. See also: Block (internet), IP blocking, Internet censorship.

Notice the overuse of words such as "commonly" and "usually" - these are unnecessary. Just indicate when something is unusual.
Notice how ideas are repeated twice - "exiled from the forum...Denying someone acces to the site" - There is no need to repeat the idea. Simply go on to the idea you want to make "This is called a ban..."
Notice the repetition of words - "If the offender, after the warning, sentence, repeats the offense" - this can become "If the user becomes a repeat offender"
Everything should be in sentence form, so the "see also" links should be linked in a sentence or deleted.

I hope that these comments are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Not a lot to add after the other reviews, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

I agree with the other review comments above, especially on references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
All internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way . Please see WP:LEAD
The images are screenshots - I am not familiar with the forums, but the image licenses seem to be treating these as software, not as images.
I would also say in the caption which forum is illustrated.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]