Wikipedia:Peer review/Gmail/archive1

Gmail
I'm embarking upon my first real Wikipedia mission: The Gmail article.

It really isn't too bad (and I've improved it a bit already, I think), but I'm still not sure about a lot of it. Is it really necessary to have that huge list of links at the bottom? Does our incredibly detailed description of how the labeling function works really add anything to the article? Basically, I want to know at what point "encyclopedic" becomes "who cares". Care to help? Starwiz 05:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Most of the criticism, however, was against Google's plans to add context-sensitive advertisements to e-mails by automatically scanning them." Given the amount of criticism this received, that slim coverage is a huge understatement. (*NOTE: I have added a couple of sentances of elaboration on this topic, though it still rather glosses over the issue -- anorris) "Features" is an overused press release word that assumes components of the software are beneficial or should be seen positively, and I think a neutral word is needed. 119 05:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * While features can certainly have a slight positive connotation, I believe can also be interpreted as reasonably neutral. Even in development processes, it is the technical word most often used for components and/or functions of the software that fulfill a specific task.  You'll note "Features" is also widely used and accepted on Wikipedia to designate the objects in question, as exemplified by featured articles Emacs and Firefox. Even on highly controversial pages like Internet Explorer, use of the term is not disputed, so it is unlikely anyone will take issue at it being used in Gmail. That being said, your point is an interesting one, and it certainly couldn't hurt if we had a more "neutral" term. Can you think of any? Phils 09:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you guys think of the huge list of links at the bottom? How about the list of keyboard shortcuts? Should I move the former into webmail and the latter into a new article? Starwiz 15:37, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. All the links not specific to Gmail should be moved to the general article, but kept at all only if they are relatively important. Wikipedia is not a link farm. The shortcuts should be moved because they are simply too detailed to be needed in a general overview article. They are no less usefull in a separate article that is linked to, but are much less in the way that way. 2) The 'Competition' section is way to detailed, and especially so about the storage issue. That whole section could be condensed to one paragraph of a few sentences that describes the issue and some external links for citation. It would be much easier to read and just as useful. 3) If you would like this so be a featured article, work to meet all the criteria for those. The biggest one this doesn't seem to meet is references. If some of the external links are reliable and were properly used as such, they can be formatted as references as shown in the link I just gave. - Taxman 19:55, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * pointing device or similar, not mouse (what about a trackpad then?), gmail4the troops should be under the invatations subheading not under general links. –Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:53, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)


 * You need to cite a source for this: "Independent tests conducted in May 2004 showed this spam filter to be about 60% accurate for a wide variety of spam, ...." --Jim Henry 20:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that the list of other email providers should rather be in the email article. The webmail providers could be moved to webmail article, too. People look for such lists in email or webmail articles, they don't want to guess, which webmail service article has such list. Or are you willing to type the same list to every article about a webmail service, and maintain the duplicates, too? And then people start adding more email services to the list, and the lists grow and grow... Also, you should decide whether to spell e-mail or email throughtout this article. -Hapsiainen 20:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)