Talk:Facebook/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The following concerns contribute to my belief that this article does not currently meet the GA criteria:

• Several very short sections:
  • "Growth", a subsection of "History", consists of only a table.
  • The "Criticism" section should be expanded to cover the kinds of criticism that have been leveled, and by whom.
    • "Criticism" is purposely short because it previously overpowered the article, so it was moved to its own page and shortened here so that the section had the proper weight. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The "Reception" section as a whole contains only short paragraphs and sections; I suggest they be merged and/or more substance be found.
  • The "Popular culture" section contains several headings that are unlikely to expand much. They should be removed as they, along with the "uncited" template, make the section appear bigger than it really is.

• More sourcing necessary:
  • The last sentence of "Facebook Lite". It shouldn't be hard to find a source for such an announcement.
  • "This patent is controversial in that it appears to cover all types of News Feeds." Especially needs a source because, how else can we be sure it's controversial?
    • Reworded and cited Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of "Platform". Another announcement thing.
  • "In December 2009, the New Oxford American Dictionary declared their word of the year to be the verb 'unfriend':" Another announcement thing.
    • Sourced. Merged into the paragraph as I don't think it should stand out as much. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The entire "Criticism" section.
  • The thing about the Facebook book. The book itself can act as a source, even.
• Also, the rest of "Popular culture" is uncited, except for the television stuff.
• The gallery immediately under the "Website" header contains five fair-use images, none of which show descriptions for why they are necessary in that context. I think the only necessary one is possibly the 2009 one, since that shows a user's page rather than just the homepage.
  • They all show a profile. I don't like the 2009 one as it shows Lite, but Lite doesn't even exist anymore. I kept the 2004 since that shows how Facebook looked in the first year—a very crucial stage. And I kept the 2007 since it's the only one of the remaining two that had a feed. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• In the Growth table, is the last row of cells necessary? It only implies that the site has not yet reached 500 million active users.
  • I think it should be kept since it's useful to compare the number of days count for 500 million members compared to the other ones. As you can see, for instance, it's taking longer to get to 500 million than it is to 400 million. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Minor thing, but in "and have even been known to fire them over posts they've made" it should be "they have", not "they've".
• Another thing, You Have 0 Friends should be "You Have 0 Friends" per episode title standards.
• Criticism of Facebook and Facebook features should not be in "See also" as they are already highlighted as related articles in the prose.

Be aware that I am not out to get anyone; I want to see this article kept. However, I cannot do that in good conscience unless my concerns are addressed. Tezero (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I probably won't have time to get to most of this. The site has changed substantially since I last did major work on the article, too. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Try to get to what you can. I notified the Internet Culture project. Tezero (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article until just now, is it ok if I strike off the stuff I did? I'd appreciate a confirmation under what i strike with your approval that it is completed to your satisfaction.--Iankap99 (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Just try to put the strike tags to the right of the asterisks so it doesn't screw up the bullet points. But it looks like these have been satisfactorily done. Tezero (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article by shuffling things around and moving some excessive info to sub-articles so that this article is more focused. I'll continue cleaning up the article, and probably add it back to my watchlist again, after it was gone for a few years since things were changing too quickly. One thing that I still need help with from others is the "Company" section, which I do believe needs to exist and expanded as Facebook is fire and foremost a business that needs to make money. Maybe in 2008 when I was working on the article, there wasn't much information about that part of the website. Now, though, there is plenty, so we should add to that what we can. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm pretty much done for now. I've marked everything else that needs to be done with maintenance templates. As I said, "Company" needs expanding. "Website" should not be a history lesson and instead should simply discuss the major features of the website. "Impact" needs to be expanded for sure, as Facebook has surely had a major impact on real-world events up to now. Facebook, and therefore this article, has growth considerably since I first started working on it in 2008. Back then, there was only one article on Facebook. I still remember creating some of the sub-articles so that the main one would be more focused. We still need to keep that goal in mind, so anything that's not absolutely essential should be moved to sub-articles. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The article's gotten better. I've looked for articles relating to Facebook as a corporation, and found a few things: [1] [2] [3] [4] Might any of them be useful? Tezero (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead and add those. There will undoubtedly be enough information to split off a new article about Facebook's business, eventually. The I4U website looks a bit sketchy, though. The other websites I know are reliable enough to use. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I added them. The Company section probably doesn't need to be that big. My only gripes that remain with the article are the ones above that aren't crossed out. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I assure you there is enough information on Facebook's business—the most talked about online company right now—to create a separate article for that. That'll be in due time, though. I see that you renamed some of the sections. I don't think that they should be merged together. I understand that the current "Impact" section only focuses on the 2008 elections, but there is definitely more out there to add to there, so I'd rather not want to have a section with such a narrow scope which is why I just name it "Impact". Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay all points done and/or commented on. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The article looks better. The features section could use some cleanup but it's not a huge issue. I'm interested to see how an article strictly about the company policies/practices will do. Result of this reassessment: "Kept". Tezero (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)