Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Google/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:46, 3 March 2007.

---

Google

Article was previously nominated in April, 2004 (failed). The reasons were 'no references' and the 'lack of substantial information on the cultural impact of Google'. The article is now well-referenced (43 references), and has far more details on it than before. A peer review was also done in May, 2006, and most of these suggestions have been incorporated into the article. So I believe that this article represents an excellent article now, and is worthy of featured status. Dr. Cash 01:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive article. Axl 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object
  • 1c: Last three paragraphs of the first part of "History" section needs citations.

Citations have been added to these paragraphs now. Dr. Cash 23:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • 1c: US patent 6285999 describing part of Google's ranking mechanism (PageRank) was granted on September 4, 2001. Why the external link for "US patent 6285999"? Keep referencing style consistent; just cite it as a footnote instead.

Done. Dr. Cash 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • 1b: History section doesn't mention anything about the company between 2001 and 2006. Nothing about its IPO either.

History section expanded and references added; IPO stuff added in. The history section once took up most of the article, and was moved to History of Google when it got big. I'd prefer to keep the history section in this article to major things that occurred, and leave most of the details in the linked article. Dr. Cash 00:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • 1a: Needs a copy-edit. Some random examples:
    • It was originally nicknamed "BackRub" Ambiguous "it".

Fixed. Replaced with, "Their search engine was originally nicknamed, "BackRub..." Dr. Cash 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • The Google search engine attracted a loyal following among the growing number of Internet users. They were attracted to its simple, uncluttered, clean design — a competitive advantage to attract users who did not wish to enter searches on web pages filled with visual distractions. Second sentence is awkward and can be considerably shortened. Simple = uncluttered = clean; three words that mean the same thing. No need for all three adjectives. If users were attracted to its simple design, then it's obvious that they didn't like visual distractions. So I'd suggest just: "The Google search engine attracted a loyal following among the growing number of Internet users, who liked its simple design." Says the same thing without the unneeded wordiness.

I've rephrased this based on your suggestion. There's also a citation here to back it up as well. Dr. Cash 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • which is based upon the number of hits users make upon ads Probably confusing to non-SEO/webmaster folks, especially since there are no links. Even still, does one "make hits upon" ads?

This is no longer in the article based on the edits to the previously mentioned suggestion. Dr. Cash 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Recently, Google entered into partnerships Avoid vague words like "recently". Give dates.

This section has been fixed, and two references have been added for the Google/AOL and Google/Fox deals. Dr. Cash 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Gmail features improved spam filtering technology, combined with the capability to use Google search technology on individual email messages. "Improved?" Over what? "Combined with" is a wordy way of saying "and". Second part of the sentence ("on individual email messages") is an odd way of describing Gmail. Why not "use Google technology to search email"?

Rephrased sentance and incorporated your suggestions. Dr. Cash 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Google AdWords allows Web advertisers to display adverts in Google's search results and the Google Content Network, through either a cost-per-click or cost-per-view scheme. Retrospectively, with Google AdSense Website owners can display adverts on their own site, and earn money every time it is clicked. Full of SEO-speak here. Also, "Retrospectively"??

Sentence rephrased. Dr. Cash 00:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Weed out redundancy ("in order to", "various", "a variety of", etc.).
    • Nevertheless, Google's excellent stock performance following the IPO... First mention of the IPO, and no explanation. Just "the IPO".
    • In 2005, Google has implemented Tense doesn't work there.

These three issues have been fixed. Wording has been adjusted. Dr. Cash 00:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • 1c: Originally, typical salaries at Google were considered to be quite low by industry standards. For example, some system administrators earned no more than $33,000–$40,000 per year; at that time it was considered to be low for the Bay Area job market. Citations? When was this?

Two references have been added to this section, and the wording has been changed slightly.

• • Why are solo months/years linked?

Solo years are linked per guidelines found at WP:DATE. I just checked for solo months that are linked (which should not be, per WP:DATE, but did not find any. Other date links follow the guidelines. Dr. Cash 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Needs a lot of polishing before this rises to FA standard. Gzkn 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object
  • 1b-History section does not adequately summarise the linked article History of Google stopping at 2001 for some reason. Instead is just seems to be part of the text from the Early history section of the history article. The same is true for the Growth section,

IPO information has been added to the subsection 'finances & initial public offering'. Not sure why mention of the IPO got deleted? With all subsections, the history section should be a good summary of the linked article. I'd like to keep things mentioned in the section to major items, since History of Google is quite long as it is. If you think anything should be mentioned in the section, please let me know. Dr. Cash 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • 2a, The lead does not summarise the article. The second and third paragraphs should really make way for a better summary of the article. The lead does not mention almost anything from the history section, IPO etc...

More details from the history section have been added to the LEAD, and the order of paragraphs was changed a bit. So it should now more accurately summarize the article. Dr. Cash 00:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • 1c, Much of the history section is unreferenced, making claims like they were attracted to its simple, uncluttered, clean design that need to be backed up. There is a paragraph in Corporate affairs and culture that is also uncited.

References have been added to the history section and corporate affairs and culture. An unreferenced paragraph that didn't contribute much to the article was removed. Dr. Cash 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm concerned that a company getting over 1700 hits in Google books has no printed references - they all seem to be online. There are good books talking about googles corporate culture, the IPO etc..

You'll probably find that this is true of most articles on wikipedia, including many featured articles. While all the inline citations are from online sources, they are from repudable sources, such as major media outlets (that also publish in print), or from Google itself. There are also two books listed in the 'further reading' section as well. Dr. Cash 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

- Peripitus (Talk) 10:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I really like the general layout of the article but things like " A complete list of corporate fundamentals is available on Google's website" send up red flags. Also,

• • I'm not sure if the wording about "relaxed" over casual; there is plenty of literature over that and googleplex etc..
  • The latest reference for the last culture part is a 1995 NYT article which kinds of leaves me hanging - would be nice to have something more recent; and as I mentioned I believe there is plenty of literature in that area.
  • A little more stock discussion would nice, especially since the stock of this company is so famous and current text doesnt go much past the IPO
  • "They have all declined recent offers of bonuses and increases in compensation by Google's board of directors" and....? Seems like an incomplete thought
  • In products, you'll probably want to mention the advertising stuff _first_, especially since you mention adwords in the current first section and leave the reader hanging a bit
  • "clicks on the bills " I think you'll need to expand a bit for the average reader
  • "Google was added to the S&P 500 index on March 30, 2006. Google replaced Burlington Resources, a major oil producer based in Houston which was acquired by ConocoPhillips." This info really verges on the trivial, and is unsourced to boot...
  • For an article that appears to mostly short overall, it seems to dwell quite a bit on "Easter eggs and April Fool's Day jokes"

Hopefully that gives the editors some ideas. Also, some passages are kind of a mouthful and maybe benefit from a rethink. RN 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.