Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Google/2

Google

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result:

Delisted per subpar layout and referencing Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC) There are too many maintenance tags (such as {{fact}}) for this to be a good article. It meets one of the Immediate failures criteria.--Proud User (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delist You're right, I also have a few other issues.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Please don't have citations in the lead
• Some points have too many cites.
• Some refs can be expanded
• To many dls.
• Too many one sentence paragraphs
• Inconsistence: "NY Times" and "New York Times"
• A few fair use rationales could be expanded.
• "no evil philosophy", "anticorporate", this is un-neutral
• "no evil" – "no-evil"
• Put citations after punctuation.

• You get the idea, this needs lots of work to keep it's status. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)