This article was previously an FAC, but it was rejected on grounds of sources. This article appears to be comprehensively sourced now, so I was wondering what more needs to be done before this becomes a featured article. —
THIS IS MESSED
OCKER
(TALK) 13:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- A few things.
- I'm not impressed with the lead. It seems clumsy and doesn't really summarize the article. No mention of anything other than the search engine, for example. Also, is there more discussion of the size of their server farm? I don't see it.
- Referencing is still lacking—sources are necessary for the "Products and services", ""Twenty percent" time", and "April Fool's Day jokes". There are still gaps in the history section as well. Also, why are none of the "further reading" works used as references? If books are available, they should be used as references. Jessie Stricchiola's quote should be sourced as well.
- Original research—"Google also is involved in collaborative development efforts with the Mozilla Foundation, based on a recent job posting." Someone will have published something saying this; probably not the best idea to come to that conclusion yourself. I think I heard somewhere that Google was paying people a dollar for each Firefox download they referred... if true, maybe that would help the argument.
- Organization is a bit weak—Some brainstorming on my part (not fully fleshed out; I'm not saying I think this is the "right" way to do it): the "Google partnerships" thing at the end seems a little out of place... I'm thinking discuss the boardroom side of things (history, partnerships, controveries) first, and then cover products and corporate culture. Or maybe put products earlier but at least end with corporate culture. The controversies need to be discussed in this article (they stuff from the History article on criticism and controversies).
- This isn't a bad article, but has a ways to go before FAC I think. Hope this helps anyway! -- Spangineer [es] (háblame) 03:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with many of the previous comments above. The 'partnerships' section is a little odd, and should either be rewritten, combined with another section, or tossed. It's a bit vague what a 'partnership' is, and in some cases, could refer to mere sponsorships.
- I strongly disagree on discussing the 'controversies' in this article. The article previously had controversies discussed in it, and it made the article WAY TOO LONG as every conspiracy theorist on the planet seemed to want to insert something here. It seems to fit well now that is in the
History of Google article, especially when you consider that today's controversy will eventually become tomorrow's history (it may still be controversial, but just toned down a bit as people move on to other things). I think the article is fine as-is, with the link to the 'recent criticisms and controversies' as a 'see also' link under the 'history' section.
Dr. Cash 00:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Stricchiola's quote is referenced. Still looking for references for the 20% time and april fool's day jokes stuff, and others. Dr. Cash 00:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- This part has been removed from the article. You're correct, one minor job posting does not indicate a partnership with anybody.
Dr. Cash 00:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- The 20% Time is referenced on Google itself as well as having been mentioned in a fairly recent TIME Magazine article on Google. The April Fool's Day jokes - I know I saw that referenced on Wired.com somewhere. Runa27 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)