Talk:Affiliate marketing/GA Review 2

This article does not meet the Good Article criteria at this time, and will not be listed. The specific issues with the article are with criterions 1 (prose & style), criterion 2 (insufficient citations; the article reeks of WP:OR), and criterion 3 (specifically 3b, lack of focus and a general insufficient organization). There could also be some issues with criterion 4 (neutrality, specifically in the 'past and current issues' section). Additionally, a fair-use rationale needs to be added to the image of the corporate logos of marketing companies in the article (criterion 6.a., images).

Overall, the lead section seems to provide a very good introduction to the topic, and a good definition of affiliate marketing, but the article just breaks down from there. First, I would expect the history section to be the first section after that, talking about how the whole concept arose. The description of the different compensation methods isn't quite as important that it should come first, and it really needs better context as to how it relates; it's basically just a listing of some of the different types of methods of compensating affiliates. And I'm not really getting the 'multi-tier programs' section either. The article seems to jump from describing different methods of compensation, to talking about one (but not all) types of actual affiliate programs, then goes into history? And the 'multi-tier programs' section has zero inline citations as well.

The history section begins by connecting affiliate marketing to revenue sharing, but doesn't go into too much detail on what revenue sharing is, or how that concept originated. Instead, it just goes right into the buy.com program, which is also lacking a citation as well.

Overall, the numerous section & subsection headers in the article, as well as the long length of these headers (lots of text), isn't helping readers to get a very good grasp of the topic, and is very confusing. A major reorganization of these section and subsection headers would be a good idea, and shortening them to more clear and concise titles would help a lot.

The section on 'From the advertiser perspective'. I'm just not sure exactly what to make of the section? What are writers trying to accomplish here? What's the purpose? How does this relate to affiliate marketing? The 'types of affiliate websites' could go into its own main section. But make it less of a list and talk more, in prose, about the different types of sites. There's also quite a few red links in that list as well.

'Finding affiliate partners/programs' -- these two section titles seem to suggest that the article is sort of a "how to" guide for creating affiliate programs, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. The two sections can probably just be deleted outright, as there is very little text here anyway, so it's not accomplishing much,...

The 'Past and current issues' section is also poorly organized. There's a lot of unsourced statements in there, and it seems like it has somewhat developed into a "sounding board" of sorts for user complaints against many of these marketing programs. Try to cut down on the use of the 3rd level headers in that section, too; it can be somewhat confusing.

Suggest moving 'web 2.0' into the history section, as it's really more related to history.

The 'see also' section is quite long. It could probably be reduced. Any links that are previously used in the article text itself should generally not be included in 'see also'. Any external links, like the one under "terminology", should be in the 'external links' section (only internal wikilinks belong under 'see also').

Hope these suggestions help to improve the article. Sorry if I can't be too specific, but I think the major organizational issues with the article are more important to get under control at this time. It might help to review the wikipedia manual of style, as well as WP:CITE for tips on formatting and including inline citations. The Good Article criteria are also available here, and some of the information on those pages might be helpful as well. Good luck! Dr. Cash 06:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)