Talk:Media event: Difference between revisions
+ {{JournProjectArticles}} |
→A proper mess: new section |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I started this article a few weeks ago. I think it's a worthy topic, but it desperately needs refs to bring it away from "original research". Most of the existing statements are very commonly agreed-upon by "media historians" and the like, but the sources need to be shown. Yes, I should do it myself (and will try to over the coming months), but unfortunately I am seriously ill and can only work in tiny bursts. So, if you're someone with some knowledge in the field, please consider helping out with both editing and finding/listing references. Thx. [[User:JDG|JDG]] 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
I started this article a few weeks ago. I think it's a worthy topic, but it desperately needs refs to bring it away from "original research". Most of the existing statements are very commonly agreed-upon by "media historians" and the like, but the sources need to be shown. Yes, I should do it myself (and will try to over the coming months), but unfortunately I am seriously ill and can only work in tiny bursts. So, if you're someone with some knowledge in the field, please consider helping out with both editing and finding/listing references. Thx. [[User:JDG|JDG]] 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
== A proper mess == |
|||
This article is flawed in so many ways - riddled with inaccuracies, misconceptions and invalid examples. Whoever added the citations obviously did not read the works they are citing either. I'd do something about it, but you know, WP is a sinking ship; and I got rid of my account for a reason. I'm bringing the fact that the article is buggered to heck and back to attention here, so if anyone else can be bothered, the book by Dayan and Katz describes the concept of media events very well. It's just a shame none of the previous editors here ever bothered to look inside it. --[[Special:Contributions/80.213.208.24|80.213.208.24]] ([[User talk:80.213.208.24|talk]]) 15:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:56, 3 June 2010
I started this article a few weeks ago. I think it's a worthy topic, but it desperately needs refs to bring it away from "original research". Most of the existing statements are very commonly agreed-upon by "media historians" and the like, but the sources need to be shown. Yes, I should do it myself (and will try to over the coming months), but unfortunately I am seriously ill and can only work in tiny bursts. So, if you're someone with some knowledge in the field, please consider helping out with both editing and finding/listing references. Thx. JDG 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
A proper mess
This article is flawed in so many ways - riddled with inaccuracies, misconceptions and invalid examples. Whoever added the citations obviously did not read the works they are citing either. I'd do something about it, but you know, WP is a sinking ship; and I got rid of my account for a reason. I'm bringing the fact that the article is buggered to heck and back to attention here, so if anyone else can be bothered, the book by Dayan and Katz describes the concept of media events very well. It's just a shame none of the previous editors here ever bothered to look inside it. --80.213.208.24 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)