Quality of Comixpedia.org's articles
Submitted by Kiba on January 1, 2006 - 22:42
Hey...I could like to see your opinion on Comixpedia.org's articles....
Basically, what you do is press the random button on Comixpedia.org ten time and rate it 1 to ten with a reason for rating . If you encounter the same article, use random until you encounter a different article.
Things to keep in mind:
Comixpedia's articles tend to be written in boring academic styles. The articles aren't meant to have humor in it. A lot of articles sound the same in the way they are written. Like "Blabalblalbabla is a webcomic by John Sixpack." That is ok, since it the standard way of doing thing.
The following is a suggestion for what make a webcomic article sucks bad and what make an article a good article.
Things that are bad:
1.It sound like a rant, opinon, eassy. adversitement, anything not Neutral Point of View. Example:
"THIS WEBCOMIC SUCK!"
2.It have lot of spelling errors. Example:
"this is a webccomic bi Eric Burns"
3. They are unclear, hard to read, and not very informative.
Things that are good:
1.It have source. Example:
1. Blablalblablabablablabalba Retrived December 15 2005"
See Megatokyo's reference section for more example. Sometime the reference may be in the from of blue external link that look like this , , .
2.The writing is crisp, clear, informative, and easy to understand.
3.They are comperhensive in their coverage of the comic.
So review ten random comxiedia article and give your opinon on it. It that simple!