Wikipedia:Peer review/Yahoo!/archive1

Yahoo!

I think the main problem with the article is that it is very badly organized. Some aspects of Yahoo! receive very thorough coverage, while other important aspects of Yahoo! receive very little coverage in the article.

For example, there is way too much information on the history of Yahoo! Besides the "History" section, there is a section on important events in Yahoo!'s history. The "Criticism" section should be near the end of the article, and it does not even mention the Yahoo! trolling phenomenon - which is instead mentioned in the wrong place - the "History" section! "Yahoo! Research Labs" should not be under the "Important Events" section. Then you see a tiny "Yahoo! Next" section - it could be merged with Yahoo! Research Labs to make a "Future of Yahoo!" section.

Now, read the following two articles I wrote: Google Groups and Homerun. In the Google Groups article, the "Interface features" section is the most comprehensive. In the Homerun article, the "Plot" section is the most comprehensive. What about Yahoo!? If I read an article about a company, I would expect the most comprehensive section to be the one about the range of products or services the company sells or provides. The Yahoo! article, however, provides a long list of "Yahoo!-owned sites and services". Could you provide some prose, rather than a list?

If the organization/structure of the article is improved, I'll nominate it for Good Article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{copied from Talk:Yahoo!}

Glad that you've taken the initiative to improve this article on the most visited website in the world. Following are my comments. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The layout should be on the following lines: History, corporate structure, businesses, firsts, relevance to web 2.0, competitors, criticisms, etc., Though not excellent, Bank of China (Hong Kong) could give an idea. Check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bank of China (Hong Kong)/archive1.
- All lists need to be moved to subarticles and a summary in prose should be retained.
- Use summary style
- Cite sources : [1] [2] Forbes etc.,

Hello. Thanks for your responses. My intention in sending Yahoo! for peer review was because I spotted several problems in the article, and was hoping other editors could work out how to fix them. Once the editors have decided how to fix the problem, we could work on the article. This does not mean I am not interested in fixing the article - it just means I don't want to do it myself, as I don't think I can do it myself either. I would be most willing to help fix the article once ways to fix it have been pointed out. I will work on creating new articles for the list and writing a summary in prose. Hopefully, after the problems with the article are fixed, we can nominate this for Good Article. I am a hopeless citer, though. Hopefully collaborating with other editors to make this a Good Article will make me a few Wikifriends (for more info, please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Unusual_crisis_-_losing_focus_of_contributing_to_Wikipedia). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In many Yahoo!-related articles, I noticed that the exclamation mark in "Yahoo!" is missing. I have added the missing exclamation marks to the article, and some Yahoo!-related articles such as Yahoo! Mail. In the process, I broke the image links in the Yahoo! article, and hence User:Coolcaesar called me an "idiot". (I don't take it personally.) Perhaps the images should be moved. Perhaps we should add the missing exclamation marks to "Yahoo!" in Yahoo!-related articles. I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Yahoo! in an attempt to raise awareness and get editors to add the missing exclamation marks as well as improving Yahoo!-related articles, especially Yahoo!, to at least Good Article status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I created two new articles - Timeline of Yahoo! and List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services - to hold the information in the "Important events" and "Yahoo!-owned sites and services" sections of the Yahoo! article. I hope others will review the contents of these two split-up articles, and move them if they can find a better name. Now on to our next task:

The contents on the List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services article (section in the Yahoo! article) should be summarized and rewritten in prose form, in a new section named "Services" or something similar - what do you suggest? The "Yahoo!-owned sites and services" section can then be removed from the article.

Yes, I agree. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on a summarized prosed form of the list, in a new section. What shall we call it? "Services"? "Products"? We will link to Yahoo!-owned sites and services as a "main article". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "History" section is too long. Some content in it should be moved to other sections. The remaining content should be summarized. Perhaps we could turn the Timeline of Yahoo! article into prose form and move it into the main article History of Yahoo!, while leaving the "History" section of the Yahoo! article a summary of the main article. The "Important events section" can then be removed.

Let's collaborate to make this a Good Article, and subsequently, a Featured Article, while making a few Wikifriends in the proccess.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, JLWS. Now, let's fix a layout first. What do you think about the layout that I suggested in my review? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the first Wikipedian who called me J.L.W.S. - I wish everyone would. Hehe. I think your suggestion is good. "Businesses" - do you mean Yahoo!'s products/services like Yahoo! Mail? (I'm not taking Accounting as a subject in school.) Another problem is that I am not an expert about Yahoo! and do not know enough about Yahoo!'s corporate structure, etc. Someone else will need to write those sections - that's why I sent the article for peer review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try that. By businesses, I meant "email", "search", "shopping" etc., classified into broad categories. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions so far:

The 'Important events' section should be merged into the "History" section and converted into prose.

OK. I will create the History of Yahoo! article soon, rephrase all the information in the "Important events" and "History" sections into the main article, and leave a summary in the "History" section of the Yahoo! article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The in-line ext. links should be converted to footnotes, please see WP:FOOTNOTE.

Someone else will have to do that. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Wackymacs 08:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the History of Yahoo! article. My next job will be to turn the "Yahoo!-owned sites and services" list into a prose section entitled "Businesses". Should I retain the list, but in another new article? After completing the "Businesses" section, and summarizing the "History" section with a link to the main article, there is not much more I can do. The rest will be up to the other editors. Hopefully, you will be able to turn it into a Good Article. I have also sent Neopets for Peer Review in the hopes of making it a Good Article. Could you possibly review Neopets as well? Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People may wish to edit articles with the assistance of a 'Dates' tab and a 'Units' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that was not written well. This article has unnecessary date links. The 'Dates' tab would sort them out. bobblewik 16:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do it for me, using the Date tab? I will be busy for a couple of days. When I come back, I will work on turning the "Yahoo!-owned sites and services" list into the "Businesses" section. Then I will have to work on a summary for the History section. That's about all I can do. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the new List_of_Yahoo!-owned_sites_and_services article. As I am not familiar with most Yahoo! services, I hope other editors can help expand the summaries I provided for Yahoo! services. In addition, the List_of_Yahoo!-owned_sites_and_services article needs to be renamed. Could anyone suggest a better name? Once we have a better name, I can make my changes to the Yahoo! article itself. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a whole section dedicated to describing the range of services Yahoo! provides today before going into the criticism. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]