The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Gurl.com's initial content used drawings of women instead of photos to avoid concerns about body image?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... that Gurl.com was created as a Master's Thesis project by three graduate students and provided non-mainstream content for teenage girls? Source: Girl Culture: An Encyclopedia (2007): The co-creators, Esther Drill, Rebecca Odes, and Heather McDonald, recognized that young girls respond to popular magazines about beauty, style, and pop culture, and they sought to create a girl-positive space for these concerns online with www.gURL.com, the product of a master's thesis project at New York University.
ALT1:... that the website Gurl.com also had a free website hosting service owned by Lycos called "Gurlpages"? Source: Sexual Teens, Sexual Media: Investigating Media's Influence on Adolescent Sexuality (2001): "gURLpages" (http://www.gurlpages.com), a web domain owned by the search engine Lycos and sponsored by dELIA'S clothing catalogue, contained a listing called "Browse gURLpages,", which yielded many helpful sites.
ALT2:... that Gurl.com's name is a wordplay on the acronym URL? Source: Girl Culture: An Encyclopedia (2007): The name "gURL" takes the idea of location on the Web (URL and feminizes it by playing a "g" in front of it.
ALT3:... that Gurl.com's initial content used drawings of women instead of photos to avoid concerns about body image? Source: The Cut (article): "Part of the directive was to not use photographs, because we wanted girls to be able to insert themselves and not compare themselves," Odes explains; in place of photos, gURL tended toward zine-inspired illustration.
Hello Lullabying, I'll be the one to take up this nomination's review, which I will present shortly. I hope my feedback will be helpful and I get to learn something new in the process. Tayi ArajakateTalk 22:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lullabying, I've completed the review. Great work on the article but some polishing is needed. See the assessment table and comments below for specifics. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions or concerns. Tayi ArajakateTalk 03:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs copyediting. There are a lot minor mistakes here and there. For example; the first line in the lead might need a "," before "that", the second line in the lead is missing a "was", the caption in the infobox should say "2018" instead of "2011", the fourth line of the second paragraph of history doesn't need "while" and "in beginning", ref 8 says its from Variety but it's instead from The New York Times, the second last line of history should say "u" instead of "o", etc etc. These are just in the lead and the first section, there are more like these afterwards. The section under content uses present tense in some lines, which should be in the past tense. "satisfaction in marriage" needs an ending quotation mark.
Done Ref 9 is fixed; "o" to "u" is fixed. lullabying (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Satisfaction in marriage" is fixed as well. lullabying (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the caption in the infobox to "since 2011" instead. lullabying (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Was" is added to the second line in the lead. lullabying (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No comma before "that" in the first line of the lead is grammatically correct. Can you suggest another way to reword? lullabying (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lullabying, how about replacing "was online" with "operated" then? Anyways, this one doesn't matter much I just think it can look a bit odd at first glance. Tayi ArajakateTalk 07:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some writing has been changed to past tense. Thanks! lullabying (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "in beginning"; it was supposed to read "beginning in." lullabying (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth line of the second paragraph says that the site was non-commercial. This isn't what the citation says. Non-commercial includes more than not having merchandise, it implies it was ad free as well which isn't clear here.
Done I added a source for it. Ref 5 (Community in the Digital Age: Philosophy and Practice) mentions Gurl.com was an example of a decline in non-commercial media aimed at children and discussed its ethics in its inclusion of advertising. lullabying (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9 is a primary source, it should be replaced with a secondary source if possible.
Do you mean ref 19? Unfortunately I could not find a secondary source for it, given that this was 10 years ago and news media sometimes don't report on website changes. lullabying (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant and that's alright. Tayi ArajakateTalk 07:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "most media outlets" should be changed to either commentators or reviewers.
Done I changed to "reviewers." lullabying (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first line describing the first logo could be moved in the body of the article.
It's already in the body of the article, at the end of the first paragraph. lullabying (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant the second line, which describes the logo. It makes the caption appear as large as the image itself. Tayi ArajakateTalk 07:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lullabying, I've read through the article for a second time and I'm going to promote this artice now since most of the issues have been resolved. There's one minor issue though which i would request you to correct, the second line under content should be in the past tense and the first two lines under legacy should be in present tense. Tayi ArajakateTalk 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here because this article was highlighted in the Signpost's featured content report. Since it's about a relatively old website, I was curious about when the article was started. It turns out that there's a very old iteration that was deleted through the proposed deletion process in 2007. As an admin I've restored its history at its deleted location, gURL.com, along with its talk page. Graham87 08:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=icon}
AGF on all hooks. Good to go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Pass
Done Ref 9 is fixed; "o" to "u" is fixed. lullabying (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
