Talk:Google/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hey, just creating the subpage. After taking a look at the article I'm going to read through. Stay tuned.

Reviewer: elektrikSHOOS 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Initial review

1. Well-written: ✓ Pass
2. Verifiable: ✓ Pass - A few sources should use a standard template such as {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} to be more informative at a glance, but there are no outstanding unreliable citations.
3. Broad in coverage: ✓ Pass Given Google's far-reaching holdings it would be impossible, or at the least improper, to include every single Google product in this article. However, it does an adequate job of touching on all of Google's major projects and products and provides relevant wikilinks to articles which can expand on them further.
4. Neutral: ✗ Fail - The article contains a criticism section. In the past, dedicated controversy/criticism sections have been seen as jeopardizing the neutrality of an article. If possible, information in that section should be integrated into other sections where applicable. Of course, this has always been something that's up for debate, and any interested editor can discuss this with me on it on this page if they believe it's not a major concern.
5. Stable: ✓ Pass - No current edit wars or major revisions in its history, and the article's current semiprotection has virtually stopped vandalism.
6. Illustrated: ✓ Pass - There's only so many pictures you can include in an article about a tech company. The ones here are sufficient and none have any outstanding fair-use or copyright problems.

Reviewer: elektrikSHOOS 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I distributed the Criticism section to an extent. Some of the stuff in the Criticism section is specifically criticism of Google as a whole. I was able to move some product specific criticism into their related sections, and what was left I renamed to the new Privacy subsection, since that title is more fitting. Furthermore, I went to the Criticism of Google article and merged in some more info (see diff). Hopefully the article is more neutral this way. Comments? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 00:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's better, definitely. I'm going to let the review sit for a week or so to get more feedback on it. Large companies such as Google always have had long lists of complaints and criticism, so I'm admitting this is a difficult topic to bring up in a neutral manner. I'd encourage you to let more interested editors know and comment on the talk page, or here, on suggestions to improve it further if necessary. elektrikSHOOS 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Elektrik Shoos, if you want others to comment on the review, you will probably need to let people know that. Editors are unlikely to do so since you have done the review. You can ask for a second opinion on the GAN page (instructions at the top of the page if you're not familiar).--BelovedFreak 09:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out, I'm new to GA reviews. elektrikSHOOS 22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick driveby comments from Belovedfreak

• You have a link to a disambiguation page (bing)

 Done

• You have at least a couple of dead links in references that need fixing

Most of the dead links have been resolved with the exception of one from the New York Post. I think that specific link is dead because the site is running into technical problems, since if you search for the cited article on the Post's main site, it comes up in the search results and just directs you to the same weird page with "GENERIC" on top. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 22:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just removed that link completely, since it accompanies three other references for the same thing. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 22:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

--BelovedFreak 09:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since there's been no response for a second opinion in nearly two weeks, and I don't see anything that screams "not fitting GAN," I'm going to go ahead and promote it. If there's any criticism the article can be delisted using standard processes. Congrats. elektrikSHOOS 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

it should have 'criticism' section. 93.87.96.127 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)