Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gmail/archive1

The peer review has been archived, that means this article should gain featured status. <p border="1" style="outset">cheung1303</p> 01:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Its not ready with referencing still in a mess. Closing of Peer Review does not amount to featured status. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, article is not up to scratch in terms of content, layout or verifiability. For example the article lacks a consistent referencing system; parts of the article aren't prose - and should be; makes no mention of ads; headings in features add little to the text with such short sections and a lot to the TOC - the same is true for the criticism section; article cites speculation on a number of points; what purpose does the help section serve? Are people still selling gmail accounts? Two links to wikibooks, and so on.--Peta 06:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, are you serious? Just because it was peer reviewed doesn't mean it's featured material. Phoenix2 16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object for the following reasons:

There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Awards and support is/are a bit short.
The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.

Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.

Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.

Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.

Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Several images are missing fair use rationales.

This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Google Mail".

There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
- many others still wish there was a way to view the size of included attachments from the message-list view
- Many believed that this meant that Google would intentionally archive copies of deleted mail forever
- is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong OBJECT - the article needs condensing, focussing and restructuring, not to mention all the WP guidelines mentioned above. I honestly think it would be near impossible to get an article on such a frequently changing service up to Featured quality, ever, since (for example) before the dust settles on Calendar integration there are images in Quick Contacts, next there will be a free toaster or something, plus non-US interfaces catch up from time to time and all these points start life being tagged on the end of a paragraph. Sadly, quality articles tend to for be quite static subject areas (IMHO). Skewer 07:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]