Talk:GoodGopher

	This Internet related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Needs substantial cleanup, removal of naked reference links, and conversion of inline links to references. Needs RWification.

Top

This should be a top-notch article, but it is currently not even bronze. It needs alot of work to get to that level. Also, aren't google searches influenced by your previous search history - therefore the top 10 Google sites would be different for every person? Tielec01 (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What does it lack? (It IS bronze.)

Not if turn off personalization etc. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 04:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW it's only 1 day old. :p Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no judgement, every article starts somewhere, but IMO this is not a bronze article, it's too fractured. For example:

Apparently, the website is so important that it merits an empty category on NaturalNews.

What does this even mean - the link leads nowhere? Moreover most of the paragraphs are simple sentences, and while I accept the comparison with Google is apt (considering they describe themselves as the anti-google) the current comparison is ham-handed. Tielec01 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Any better? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)