![]() | Washington Blade has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And I think you ought to consider going to GA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. This article does not appear to be the article I thought I looked at. :) But, if you're still interested in GA -
That's all I can think of at the moment. I'll review later. This is important what you're doing, btw, no LGBT newspaper has made it beyond a stub yet. If you can get this up to FA, we'll have a precedant to work from. Good luck! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to pass or fail the article since I have been loosely involved with the article. Currently, I would put it on hold:
I haven't looked at the following yet: 2a, 3b, 4a, 4b, and 6a. -- Ash Lux ( talk | contribs) 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
At present, I don't think the article meets quite meets several elements of the GA criteria. I'll put it on hold to give time to address my concerns, which I'll explain below.
The names of the subheadings in the history section are a bit of a problem. "Coming of age years" in particular seems rather informal and the phrase does not seem to have been used by any commentator. I suggest more factual descriptors of the period or subdividing by the dates involved. Ideas could be:
The list of notable contributors is unsourced. It should referenced or removed.
Not sure here but the coverage seems very critical of the paper. Are there any reliable sources that can be quoted that praise the newspaper that could counterbalance the "criticism and controversy" section?
All images used in this article are copyright and so require full fair use rationales, explaining why their use in this article is necessary. Such rationales need to be added to the image description pages.
It is important to remember that unfree images should only be used when they significantly add to the article, and should not be used only to decorate it. As such, I have doubts about the necessity of:
The above concerns should not detract from the fact that the article is very well written and informative. Newspapers are extremely difficult to write strong articles about. There are few GA in this field and no FAs that I have seen. WjB scribe 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the changes made following my comments, I believe the article now meets to GA criteria. It is weakest on 4b given the lack of positive critical comment to balance the criticism & contrversies section but this seems to reflect lack of availability of such information. I do not believe it enough in of itself to fail the article, but is definitely an area where improvements should focus. WjB scribe 15:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following block of text because I could find no sources to verify it with. It was added by an IP address only user and so therefore I removed it until it can be properly sourced...
There is also controversy surrounding the promotion and resignation of features editor Rhonda Smith, who was offered the Arts Editor position over Brian Moylan in 2002. Rumors still run rampant that Smith, an African-American lesbian, was promoted from a reporter position to an editor, to add diversity to the Blade’s predominantly Caucasian gay male staff, as Moylan seemed a better fit (he still writes for the publication’s TV column). Smith’s inability to mesh well with others, also caused a stir and drew lots of complaints during her tenure as the paper’s arts editor. Rumors are that in 2004, the Blade’s then editorial assistant, who worked under her supervision, quit because of Smith’s continuous verbal abuse and demanding persona. The editorial intern at the time, was offered the EA’s position and turned it down, which is rumored to have eventually led the Blade’s higher ups to suggest that Smith leave. Before Smith resigned, the intern left the Blade in August 2005. Smith resigned in the fall of 2005, a few months after hiring a replacement for the editorial assistant who left the paper in May 2005, and Moylan took on the role of the paper's arts editor.
Anyone got any sources for this? jtowns 05:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman ( talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This article references the Blade in past tense as if to say it is defunct. However, recent announcements by former Blade staff at the DCAgenda announced its revival. Why then is the Blade still being referred to in the past tense? MKleid ( talk) 13:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The tense changes from present to past and back. Please make consistent. Derekbd ( talk) 20:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Washington Blade. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Washington Blade. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Washington Blade. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Washington Blade has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And I think you ought to consider going to GA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. This article does not appear to be the article I thought I looked at. :) But, if you're still interested in GA -
That's all I can think of at the moment. I'll review later. This is important what you're doing, btw, no LGBT newspaper has made it beyond a stub yet. If you can get this up to FA, we'll have a precedant to work from. Good luck! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to pass or fail the article since I have been loosely involved with the article. Currently, I would put it on hold:
I haven't looked at the following yet: 2a, 3b, 4a, 4b, and 6a. -- Ash Lux ( talk | contribs) 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
At present, I don't think the article meets quite meets several elements of the GA criteria. I'll put it on hold to give time to address my concerns, which I'll explain below.
The names of the subheadings in the history section are a bit of a problem. "Coming of age years" in particular seems rather informal and the phrase does not seem to have been used by any commentator. I suggest more factual descriptors of the period or subdividing by the dates involved. Ideas could be:
The list of notable contributors is unsourced. It should referenced or removed.
Not sure here but the coverage seems very critical of the paper. Are there any reliable sources that can be quoted that praise the newspaper that could counterbalance the "criticism and controversy" section?
All images used in this article are copyright and so require full fair use rationales, explaining why their use in this article is necessary. Such rationales need to be added to the image description pages.
It is important to remember that unfree images should only be used when they significantly add to the article, and should not be used only to decorate it. As such, I have doubts about the necessity of:
The above concerns should not detract from the fact that the article is very well written and informative. Newspapers are extremely difficult to write strong articles about. There are few GA in this field and no FAs that I have seen. WjB scribe 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the changes made following my comments, I believe the article now meets to GA criteria. It is weakest on 4b given the lack of positive critical comment to balance the criticism & contrversies section but this seems to reflect lack of availability of such information. I do not believe it enough in of itself to fail the article, but is definitely an area where improvements should focus. WjB scribe 15:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following block of text because I could find no sources to verify it with. It was added by an IP address only user and so therefore I removed it until it can be properly sourced...
There is also controversy surrounding the promotion and resignation of features editor Rhonda Smith, who was offered the Arts Editor position over Brian Moylan in 2002. Rumors still run rampant that Smith, an African-American lesbian, was promoted from a reporter position to an editor, to add diversity to the Blade’s predominantly Caucasian gay male staff, as Moylan seemed a better fit (he still writes for the publication’s TV column). Smith’s inability to mesh well with others, also caused a stir and drew lots of complaints during her tenure as the paper’s arts editor. Rumors are that in 2004, the Blade’s then editorial assistant, who worked under her supervision, quit because of Smith’s continuous verbal abuse and demanding persona. The editorial intern at the time, was offered the EA’s position and turned it down, which is rumored to have eventually led the Blade’s higher ups to suggest that Smith leave. Before Smith resigned, the intern left the Blade in August 2005. Smith resigned in the fall of 2005, a few months after hiring a replacement for the editorial assistant who left the paper in May 2005, and Moylan took on the role of the paper's arts editor.
Anyone got any sources for this? jtowns 05:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman ( talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This article references the Blade in past tense as if to say it is defunct. However, recent announcements by former Blade staff at the DCAgenda announced its revival. Why then is the Blade still being referred to in the past tense? MKleid ( talk) 13:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The tense changes from present to past and back. Please make consistent. Derekbd ( talk) 20:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Washington Blade. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Washington Blade. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Washington Blade. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)