Has Potential but needs work
I feel the page a is a little lacking. Here is my evaluation based on the Good Article Criteria:
1) Well-Written - Lacking There are several instances of grammar mistakes. In some cases it looks like the page is just a mesh of different sources. Examples:
- "It tracks the number of mentions an individual or company receives on digital properties and analyzes factors such as influence, sentiment and language."
- "A free version can manage up to seven social media accounts, while paid versions are $9.99 or $99 a month. and developer accounts are free."
2) Verifiable - Good I feel a lot of the sources mentioned were pretty good and none of them seemed original. Most of the feature mentions are directly from their site and I see some reputable sources i.e. TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Mashable, and other Tech-related news reporting sites.
3) Broad in its Coverage - Lacking Even though there reliable sources I feel the coverage is a little lacking. For software that has been out for nearly 4 years, we only have two evaluations and two reported uses.
4) Neutral - Good After reading the article I did not sense any bias towards the software whatsoever. It felt primarily objective and the evaluations sounded fair (crediting strengths and weaknesses of the software).
5) Stable - Unsure After checking the history and the edits made, it seems things have not changed too much. However, there are a variety of topics being discussed on the Talk page so it is uncertain if this article is stable. Some of the discussion included
6) Illustrated - Lacking Little to no pictures which may be helpful to the article.
- It's pretty standard fare to have a UI image on software pages and that's probably the only image needed for such a small page, but we could take the UI image out of the infobox and place it into the article-body (making it larger) to give the article a more illustrated feel. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Overall, I think this article has some potential but it is lacking in some areas. Perhaps if we could fix them, it would be a good article nomination? First time reviewing so go easy on me :) Augbog (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Since the review's been abandoned, I'll do a look through myself and make a decision on the article. Wizardman 01:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I went and did a small amount of copyediting, and would like to see the lead expanded a bit. Besides that, this looks good to me, so I'll pass this. Wizardman 00:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Wizardman just wanted to thank you for doing that. Sorry I have been busy with work and school so I never got a chance to come back around to it! If it helps, I looked a the article again and it looks solid. Sorry about that! Still kind of new to Wikipedia >< Augbog (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)