Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Google Gulp
Article on Google's recent April Fools Day joke. Plus nice graphics!--Mb1000 04:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Featured article criteria suggests that articles which are utterly short "should in most cases be merged into another article." I think a mention of this instance in the Google article would be appropriate in this case. Or, even if we believe it deserves its own article, I wouldn't label this Wikipedia's best work. --DanielNuyu 08:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Needs considerable expansion; if this is really all there is to say, a merge should perhaps be considered. Everyking 13:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Object - Cite your sources. slambo 14:52, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Object. No sources, really isn't deep enough, and the "notes" section at the end should be incorporated into the prose. – flamurai (t) 15:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to see a substantive article on Google's hoaxes. A re-phrasing, albeit with extra commentary, of a single press release isn't enough to be an FA in my opinion. Pcb21| Pete 15:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Concur on the Google's hoaxes idea. --DanielNuyu 01:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Also concur on the Google's hoaxes idea, however, some of what were considered to be hoaxes, like their Infinity+1 storage, and their predictive searches (now known as Google Suggest), are coming into the realm of possibility. Sure, Infinity+1 may be "impossible" but they didn't say how soon it would come into place, and with their Gmail space counter rising like it does, it lends some potential to the idea of Infinity+1. So, certainly not FAC material, but possibly the content should be moved to a page summarizing Google Hoaxes, as there will likely be others in future. Will also post this to the VFD page. --Kyrin\talk 21:24, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
- Object. Not anything like featured article quality in length, detail or analysis. Perhaps nominator was trying for some sort of record for length of time from scratch to featured status
Dbiv 19:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Object. While I like the article so far, it is by no means ready for FAC for the reasons above.
- Object It is even a VFD at the moment and lacks information. Just plain bad. Squash 03:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Object - use of plain numbered links is bad style. Mozzerati 17:16, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
- Object. Should be deleted, not canonized. RickK 22:57, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Object. This is just a transformation of the Google Gulp page itself, heavily paraphrased, with fatuous explanations of the obvious. The only sources cited are the Google Gulp article itself, and a bogus eBay auction. Featured articles should be the result of reasonably serious research, using a number of reasonably good sources. I don't believe more than a couple of work-hours went into the making of this article. Is this FAC nomination an attempt to prove some point?. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)