1a.) Compared with the latest reviewed version of the article, the prose is very choppy and unclear. In some sections, every sentence seems to function as its own paragraph, while in other sections there are random paragraph separations where there shouldn't be. The entire Website section is a mass conglomeration of Facebook features that needs to be sorted out in some way. Also, the section hierarchy is absurd. The Media impact, Social impact, and Political impact sections are stubs that should be merged together or even into the Reception section.
4.) From an organizational standpoint, putting criticism of a topic in a separate Criticism section makes sense, but in terms of neutrality it just drives the article down a path of POV. Notice how the entire Reception section is entirely positive. Not a single negative review is documented. Furthermore, the Criticism section, which seems to be the only place where negative criticism exists, is a mere five or six sentences, and judging from the massive size of the Criticism of Facebook article, I'm sure that's not all that can be said. IMHO, criticism should not be concentrated in one section, but rather distributed throughout the entire article, as it gives the reader a better representation of the topic while their reading a given section (I recently made this change in the Google article as an example). Regardless, even with the separate Criticism section, there is not much coverage of the other side of Facebook. (Also, it should be noted that the lead section makes no mention of Facebook criticism, a vital hole in what is supposed to be a summary of the entire article.)
6.) I know images are usually a good thing, but there seems to be an overload of images here. No reader is going to want to see the 2005, 2007, current, and mobile screenshots of Facebook one on top of the other. The 2005 and current screenshots should suffice.
In my opinion, this article needs a really good copy-edit in order to meet GA criteria again, and the criticism of Facebook needs to be better distributed throughout the article so that readers do not get a one-sided view of the topic. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)