This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Yelp article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Yelp 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. Review: October 11, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Yelp Reservations page were merged into Yelp. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (18 October 2016) |
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
So I have to confess I didn't notice the GA review below until just now. Where does that stand at the moment? It looks pretty well completed. I don't see any outstanding issues. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Extended content
|
---|
Reviewer: Erachima ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for picking up the review user:Erachima! I will get started on these this weekend at the latest. CorporateM ( Talk) 11:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Organizational issues
Scope
Sourcing
Neutrality
Grammar
Images and stability are non-issues. I'm placing the page On Hold. -- erachima talk 00:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
At the request of the nominator I've taken over this review. My comments are below. I think that the bulk of this article is good to go. It's largely well sourced and clear and some good work has been done to clear up the first reviewers comments. I have two outstanding problems; one large and one small. My small problem is with the lede. I feel that it can be tightened up a bit and could better reflect the content of the article. My major problem is with the structure and tone of the Relationships with businesses section. The section has a very tough job. It has to accurately and fairly reflect the available sourcing on Yelp's admittedly patchy relationship with their main customer base. This is complicated by our merging of Yelp the business entity with Yelp the body of crowdsourced reviews, so we have sections which go from discussing business relationships to reviewers to the site and back again. There are also some problematic passages where we appear to be off-loading responsibilities for certain claims (often those critical of Yelp) where it isn't needed and or alternating between good press and bad where it would make more sense to the reader to organize things logically. I don't mean to pose the above as withering criticism of the article or the motivations of editors. On the contrary, it is very difficult to produce a well organized, clear and neutral summary of a subject like this so we should expect these problems at the GA level.
I think the best way forward is to deal with the smaller problems first and try to collect the larger problems and write proposed drafts for the individual sections which tackle multiple issues at once, because working on many of the tone issues piecemeal may introduce clarity problems and vice versa.
completed
|
---|
|
complete
|
---|
Thanks. Protonk ( talk) 01:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Here's what I suggest for the community section:
|
How's this? CorporateM ( Talk) 22:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
My name is Amber and I work for Yelp. In conformity with WP:COI, I'd like to request a few tweaks to the page to keep it up to date as follows:
I have a few other changes I'd like to request as well, but I thought I'd ask for three at-a-time to make it easier for editors to review. Thank you in advance for your time and attention considering my proposed changes to the page. Alalbrech ( talk) 19:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Alalbrech ( talk) 19:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @ Ovinus:. I have a few more changes I'd like to request with a COI to add if you're willing to review a few more. The requested additions are as follows:
Let me know if you have any questions or there is any way I can be of assistance. I appreciate you taking the time either way. Best regards. Alalbrech ( talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
|
For any business or entity being reviewed there are sometimes just as many reviews that have been hidden because of Yelp's stupid proprietary automated review filtering system that filters out reviews based on a number of criteria despite many of the reviews being very helpful or genuine. This is a major problem and a major component of Yelp reviews in general and should be mentioned in an article section here. More info: https://nowspeed.com/social-media-marketing/yelp-reviews-not-recommended-data-analysis/ 99.97.141.22 ( talk) 00:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Yelp article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Yelp 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. Review: October 11, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Yelp Reservations page were merged into Yelp. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (18 October 2016) |
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
So I have to confess I didn't notice the GA review below until just now. Where does that stand at the moment? It looks pretty well completed. I don't see any outstanding issues. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Extended content
|
---|
Reviewer: Erachima ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for picking up the review user:Erachima! I will get started on these this weekend at the latest. CorporateM ( Talk) 11:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Organizational issues
Scope
Sourcing
Neutrality
Grammar
Images and stability are non-issues. I'm placing the page On Hold. -- erachima talk 00:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
At the request of the nominator I've taken over this review. My comments are below. I think that the bulk of this article is good to go. It's largely well sourced and clear and some good work has been done to clear up the first reviewers comments. I have two outstanding problems; one large and one small. My small problem is with the lede. I feel that it can be tightened up a bit and could better reflect the content of the article. My major problem is with the structure and tone of the Relationships with businesses section. The section has a very tough job. It has to accurately and fairly reflect the available sourcing on Yelp's admittedly patchy relationship with their main customer base. This is complicated by our merging of Yelp the business entity with Yelp the body of crowdsourced reviews, so we have sections which go from discussing business relationships to reviewers to the site and back again. There are also some problematic passages where we appear to be off-loading responsibilities for certain claims (often those critical of Yelp) where it isn't needed and or alternating between good press and bad where it would make more sense to the reader to organize things logically. I don't mean to pose the above as withering criticism of the article or the motivations of editors. On the contrary, it is very difficult to produce a well organized, clear and neutral summary of a subject like this so we should expect these problems at the GA level.
I think the best way forward is to deal with the smaller problems first and try to collect the larger problems and write proposed drafts for the individual sections which tackle multiple issues at once, because working on many of the tone issues piecemeal may introduce clarity problems and vice versa.
completed
|
---|
|
complete
|
---|
Thanks. Protonk ( talk) 01:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Here's what I suggest for the community section:
|
How's this? CorporateM ( Talk) 22:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
My name is Amber and I work for Yelp. In conformity with WP:COI, I'd like to request a few tweaks to the page to keep it up to date as follows:
I have a few other changes I'd like to request as well, but I thought I'd ask for three at-a-time to make it easier for editors to review. Thank you in advance for your time and attention considering my proposed changes to the page. Alalbrech ( talk) 19:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Alalbrech ( talk) 19:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @ Ovinus:. I have a few more changes I'd like to request with a COI to add if you're willing to review a few more. The requested additions are as follows:
Let me know if you have any questions or there is any way I can be of assistance. I appreciate you taking the time either way. Best regards. Alalbrech ( talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
|
For any business or entity being reviewed there are sometimes just as many reviews that have been hidden because of Yelp's stupid proprietary automated review filtering system that filters out reviews based on a number of criteria despite many of the reviews being very helpful or genuine. This is a major problem and a major component of Yelp reviews in general and should be mentioned in an article section here. More info: https://nowspeed.com/social-media-marketing/yelp-reviews-not-recommended-data-analysis/ 99.97.141.22 ( talk) 00:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)