From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Google

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to have it reviewed for GA soon and would like some input on where to go from here.

Thanks, iBen ( talk) 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

As your goal here is to get to GA, I will focus on the GA criteria. There are others more familiar with the company who can provide better guidance on the completeness and accuracy of the coverage. If you have not, I would urge you to seek out reviewers on the Google WikiProject (or any of the other projects tagged on this article) for an expert opinion.

Here goes:

General observations:

  • The products discussion needs the most work. It is confusing to read and seems incomplete. It does not leave the reader feeling like they understand what Google does and what they sell. Someone intimate with the products themselves would be invaluable for improving that.
 Done
  • The article assumes a lot of industry knowledge. Who are all these companies? What does all this stuff do? It tends to lapse (unintentionally, of course) into jargon which someone new to the topic would not understand. A review by an utter newbie (someone’s proverbial grandma) could help highlight a lot of these issues.
  • The article uses Summary Style quite a bit, which is a good thing, but feels like it cuts off discussion of a lot of interesting points to do so. It seems abbreviated. Some examples are below. Even a little more discussion and explanation would go a long way to improving the quality of the prose and sense of completeness.
  • The prose is good and grammatically correct. But like a lot of articles that came together through the work of many hands over time, it makes a choppy read. A good copyeditor, with a fresh set of eyes, can help smooth it out.

Some comments:

  • You should either cite everything or only direct quotes and extraordinary claims in the lead. You current do a bit of both. I would suggest only citing the quotes and extraordinary claims, as it would make an already heavily linked lead more readable.
 Done
  • The google logo needs the correct Fair Use Rationale. I doubt that the current text logo rationale is going to fly. Use this template {{logo fur}}. Non-free logos must also be reduced resolution, which this one is not. I would try to find a lower res version to avoid potential problems in the future.
  • The caption on the 1998 screen shot could be better. What’s should we notice or think about this image? This more or less true of all the images. See WP:CAP for good advice.
 Done
  • The server rack image is good, but the claims that (1) it represents “The first iteration of Google production servers” and (2) was built with inexpensive hardware and was designed to be very fault-tolerant” should be referenced.
 Done
  • Captions that are complete sentences need periods. Fragments do not.
 Done
  • You should avoid sandwiching the text between two images, as happens at the top of the History section.
 Done
  • You cite more than one source in many places, which is not wrong, but detracts from the readability. In general, it is a good idea if the statement supported is highly controversial and/or likely to be strongly challenged. For most things, you should just pick the one best source and use it.
  • Watch out for overlinking. Things like PhD and US$ really don’t need links.
 Done
  • You link Brin and Page more than once in the body. Check for other cases of overlinking.
 Done
  • On the other hand, things like “domain” and “link” do need wikilinks for a non-technical audience.
 Done
  • You should define acronyms before using them. For example, “initial public offering (IPO)” before using “IPO”.
 Done
  • Don’t use bold in the body. GOOG and GGQ1 can be normal text.
 Done
  • Why is the appliance image next to the Advertising section? You don’t describe it until later. It might make more sense there.
 Done
  • Why were uploads to Google Video discontinued?
 Done
  • “Google has promoted their products in various ways. . .” This paragraph seems really thin. Is that ALL they do to promote their products? Are these especially noteworthy? This discussion, along with those on Android, Chrome, Wave, and Chrome OS seem out of place in the Search engine section. Most of this section is about other products. Is there a better name for it?
 Done
  • The Products and services section as a whole could be better organized. Why is Books its own section and Desktop is not? What about Scholar? Finance? Calendar? Groups? Doesn’t Desktop go with Productivity tools? There is a huge range of products, I realize, and some of them only distantly related, but this section is hard to follow. I fear it would be incomprehensible to readers who do not already understand the products. This is where an expert reviewer could help this article a lot.
 Done
  • All of the citation needed flags need to be cleared up. That would be a quick fail at GA.
 Done
  • “On 7 July 2009, Google announced the project to develop Google Chrome OS…” Why? What was the “window of opportunity” all about?
✗ Not done
  • What is an “invitation-only beta release”? What’s a “beta product”? I know what they are, but non-technical users will not. As a general comment, you have a tendency to slide into net jargon throughout the article. Avoiding WP:JARGON is an explicit GA criterion. You should pay close attention to fixing that here.
✗ Not done - Hopefully everybody knows what an invitation is. As for beta program, the best explanation for it is the word that appears directly before it: "invitation-only". — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • You have several broken links: Custom Search Business Edition, Google Security Services, Netshops. Check for others.
 Done
  • “Platform” is not obvious to non-technical people. Would “Technology” or “Computer platform” be more self-explanatory?
✗ Not done - Could not find this in the current version of the article (it has changed since the PR). — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The dubious – discuss tag at “Prior to 2004, Schmidt was making …” should be resolved
 Done
  • The direct quote at "personal information for 18 months" should be referenced.
✗ Not done - Could not find this in the current version of the article (it has changed since the PR). — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • YouTube is linked more than once. So is Yahoo! So is IPO. I notice many of the Google products are also repeatedly linked.
  • “The privacy deal also applied to other litigants including the FA Premier League, the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organisation and the Scottish Premier League.” I am not sure what this means. The whole Viacom discussion is hard to follow. What was it about? Why was Google involved?
✗ Not done - Could not find this in the current version of the article (it has changed since the PR). — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)� reply
  • “The parties therefore will further meet on the matter lest the data be made available to the court.” This sounds like a quote. Is it?
✗ Not done - Could not find this in the current version of the article (it has changed since the PR). — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • “Google has faced allegations of sexism and ageism from former employees.” Can you elaborate? Certainly worthy of additional detail.
✗ Not done - The sentence is self-explanatory. Google has faced allegations of sexism and ageism from former employees. That means that former employees claimed Google was sexist and ageist. To add any more would just be putting in names and descriptions of lawsuits, which is not really necessary for this article. — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Do you need pictures of both the building and the sign? Are there available photos of the interior? I want to see the piano, lava lamps, old server clusters, and a projection of search queries on the wall.
 Done
  • “In 2008 Google announced its "project 10^100"...” Is there more to say? What kind of ideas? Have they done anything interesting?
✗ Not done - Unfortunately, that's it. There is nothing else about the project other than that it was launched by Google. — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure using the block quote to define net neutrality is the best way to go. Maybe define it yourself (including why it is an issue at all), and then use the “In our view . . . “ part of the quote to highlight Google’s position on it?
  • Is it worth mentioning in the article that Google is in the NASDAQ 100 and when that happened?
  • Only include links in the See only section that you have not already used, and try to work as many as you can into the body of the article. You could probably do without that section altogether. See WP:ALSO
 Done
  • You should pare the external links down to the official links, and remove any you have already used as references. See WP:EL
 Done
  • References should all have publishers and dates. Websites all need accessdates. You should pick one date format and use it consistently.
 Done
  • There are several dead links. Go here and it will show you which.
 Done
  • You are linking to a couple disambiguation pages. here will show which ones. Link directly to the article you want instead.
 Done

Overall it is a very-well researched article that needs some polishing and re-organizing but could certainly be a good GA candidate.

I hope you find these comments helpful. They are, of course, one editor’s opinion. Others may disagree. Good luck with the article!

-- Nasty Housecat ( talk) 02:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Google/archive4&oldid=373202664"