Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dot-com/archive1

Dot-com

As a former participant of the dot-com bubble, I found the retrospective even-handed. It's also relevant now given recent TIME magazine article basically hyping Web 2.0. It also meets all criteria.--Philosophistry 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Unreferenced. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object for these reasons:
  • No references section.
  • Too few inline cites.
  • Does the List of well-known dot-coms really have to be here? And what makes these ones well-known. Perhaps there should be a link to list of dot-coms instead.
  • The lead is too short.
  • The article is quite short overall.
  • Much of the article focuses on the dot-com bubble rather than on dot-coms themselves.
• Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I think the article is justified in talking about the dot-com bubble (dot-coms notable enough to get wide mention can certainly take their own article anyway, but...
  • No significant references.
  • Only one picture. There has got to be more that can be added. Screenshots of dot-com ads?
  • Mind, I think this article can be a featured article with some work...it just isn't now.
• Skybunny 06:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object
  • Lack of references and pictures
  • Much too short an article for a major subject; lack of detail at key points e.g. Is the European 3G mobile licensing boom/bust really a "dot com" phenomenon? (it might be, but its not clear here how). Why did the AOL Time Warner merger fail to deliver on its promised synergy? At the moment, the article only suggests "boardroom disagreements".
  • Who were the key personalities in the dot com boom/bust? - no specific persons are mentioned. Key people would include Wall St analysts Henry Blodget, Mary Meeker, Jack Grubman, Frank Quattrone (the role of Wall St in the dot com boom is underemphasized at the moment);and also people associated with Wired magazine and The Industry Standard (which really needs an article...)
  • The sense of timeline is much too vague

Bwithh 09:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article could reasonably easily be made into an FA standard piece. It really needs to be renamed to the dot.com bubble, it needs a much better lead, and perhaps a picture of a dot.com site (or of something related to the article). References will be harder, although you menion a Time Magazine article. --Wisden17 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No pictures, no references, the lead does not conform to WP:LEAD & I doubt it is comprehensive. Mikker ^(...) 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. As per WP:WIAFA, all FA's require a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)