Talk:Paxata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Paxata has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 29, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed
January 11, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow unregistered users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article was accepted on 29 June 2014 by reviewer Timtrent (talk · contribs).
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paxata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 29, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Unfortunately, writing is a bit choppy at times. Before another GA Review, could first use copy edit from people at WP:GOCE -- however wait til expansion from other recommendations in GA Review, below.
I'll take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Or maybe done? The copyediting looks fine to me, but I did add some wikilinks to terms that the user may be familiar with and added a couple missing commas. CorporateM (Talk) 14:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate?: Fails here. Info on everything in the infobox is uncited. This appears to include info on WP:BLPs.
Yes check.svg Done I typically prefer to leave as few citations as possible for non-controversial information in the infobox, because having citations inside the square is rather unsightly and much of the information has references in the body of the article. The Lede does not require cites, but I am not sure if the infobox is considered part of the Lede. Oh well, it has cites now. CorporateM (Talk) 14:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: Fails here. First off, lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD, not a full concise summary of entire article contents -- appears to only be summary or even just restatement of History sect. Should be summary of entire article as a standalone summary so reader who just reads lede intro sect gets gist of entire article including other sects. History sect seems a bit sparse. Who founded it? Why? What was there motivation? From whom did they get the startup capital? Why were they in stealth mode for so long? What is stealth mode for the reader that doesn't know what stealth mode is? Much more context is needed here. Software sect is actually not too bad.
Yes check.svg Done I expanded the Lede a little, but also hesitantly. Because it is a very small article, the Lede is now about one-quarter of the entire page! CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Regarding the History section, the company has been out of stealth mode for less than one year, so naturally they do not have a very long or detailed history yet. I believe the section is adequate for describing just 1-2 years of history. CorporateM (Talk) 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Neutral point of view?: Pretty good here. Reception sect could be expanded a bit more -- hopefully with additional secondary sources, if there are some more out there about this company? I like how the Reception sect does actually include viewpoints from multiple different perspectives, that is a good sign going forwards.
X mark.svg Not done I have included all the sources I have identified and my search was pretty comprehensive. Perhaps the Reception section could be expanded in the future as additional sources emerge, but I believe the current section is comprehensive based on currently available sources and that it covers all the major aspects. CorporateM (Talk) 14:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Article stability?: Article is indeed stable going back a few months in time. No issues upon inspection of article edit history, talk page, and talk page history.
Yes check.svg Done Nothing to do here CorporateM (Talk)
6. Images?: Fails here. (1) File:Paxata-screenshot.png has problem issues tagged at top of page that are not yet addressed. (2) File:Paxata logo.png problem issues tagged at top as well. Best way to resolve both ideally would be to get some statement confirmed via WP:OTRS, and ideally upload to Wikimedia Commons as free-use images, if possible. And/or just resolve those various image tags with additional explanations on the image pages, the image talk pages, and the article talk page.
1. Yes check.svg Done I have removed the flag. The flag seemed to have been making an assumption that I lied about the image's origins, saying that it says it is from an offline source, but it is most likely from an online source. This just isn't true. It was provided to me directly from Paxata, offline. The source information is correct. CorporateM (Talk) 14:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
2. X mark.svg Not done The flag says "The usage of this non-free media on Wikipedia was previously under review for compliance". This is true and does not seem to indicate a problem with the image - just notes that it has been discussed. CorporateM (Talk) 14:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not GA quality at this time, due to extensive issues on multiple points, above. Please feel free to renominate when you feel above issues are addressed. Good job on the NPOV in the Reception sect, however!!

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— — Cirt (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paxata/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 00:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @user:23W. I figured you probably weren't logged-in over Christmas, so I wanted to check-in and make sure this was still on your radar. CorporateM (Talk) 19:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Apologies for the wait. I'll try getting to this before the end of the week. 23W 09:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Ugh, sorry for the wait—again. It probably wasn't a good idea for me to take these up during these busy times. I'll have something up soon. 23W 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for reviewing! CorporateM (Talk) 23:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Review (finally)[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

  • Gave a simple copy edit myself; click here to see the changes.
    • I also added a slew of wikilinks to the lead, which should help the layperson. Most of these are already present in the body, so it makes sense to introduce them here.
  • Although it was brought up in the previous review that the infobox required citations after each cell, it's probably overkill here. You could at least remove the references for information already present in the body of the article.
Yes check.svg Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Searching through some of the lesser-known sources, they seem to meet WP:SOURCE standards of all having editorial oversight and being cited in other reliable third-party sources (used mainly Google News to search up articles containing the name of the source excluding the domain of said source).
  • This may be out of scope, but in the "Software" section, the references that are placed mid-sentence without any punctuation should probably be bundled for readability. I've attempted this in the code below; you would copy it from where the "Software" section begins to the end of the first paragraph:
Yes check.svg Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, good work. All problems brought up in the last review seem to be addressed. Putting on hold for 14 days. 23W 20:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)