What the deck did well:

Effective product slides. This deck included slides that showed their actual product and didn’t go overboard on information, which some founders tend to do when talking about the specifics of their product. Most importantly, they tied the product functionalities to the problem they highlighted.
Good use of transition slides. They used these slides as they are meant to be used — to enhance their narrative and create natural pauses — while also using them to show traction with the media.
Purposeful use of information. The deck didn’t have the exact number of slides that our research suggests is optimal (20), but the information they included within their 24 slides was portrayed clearly and concisely — everything had a purpose, and there was no fluff.

What the deck would need to improve to secure funding in 2020:

Less time and space on traction. Facebook (or thefacebook.com, as it was then called) did have quite a bit of traction for the stage the company was in, so it’s not totally wrong that they leaned on that. But if they were pitching now, it would be best to condense this information into fewer slides.
More slide categories. One example is a “Why Now?” slide to let investors know exactly why now is the right time for them to invest their money. They would also need to include a team slide — that contact page with Eduardo’s face wouldn’t cut it. A good team slide now includes photos of the founding team, bios relevant to their roles, and LinkedIn profiles.
A better narrative. There are so many companies now that have traction — investors want more information to let them know why any given company is a sound investment.

Source: Docsend