Talk:Fishbowl Inventory: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:37, 5 October 2013

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Fishbowl Inventory was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 15, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

United States: Utah Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be taking this review. I'll point out all the improvements neccessary to make this article GA compliant in the table below. If you have any questions throughout the process please send me a message or just ask here. Retrolord (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This part seems a bit out of place where it is now: The Mississippi State Department of Health,[9] Santa Barbara County, CA IT Network Division,[10] and several other government bodies use Fishbowl Inventory as an asset tracking system.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I am a bit concerned about this part: (aka ExpressTech Holdings). aka is too coloquial for an article, and this part is only mentioned in the intro. If its in the lead it should be expanded upon in a history section later.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citations needed for the Products section
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sufficient references for most things, apart from the products section
	2c. it contains no original research.	Atleast none that I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does not need to list every award the company has ever recieved. This section needs to be cut down significantly. Same with the products section.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This is article is far from being neutral. The article like an advertisement and is promotes the company. Possibly eligble for speedy deletion as content that is purely promotional?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

No changes have been made, and I'm concerned about the neutrality as well, so failing this. Wizardman 18:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. If this page isn't deleted as an obvious product of the Marketing Department of Fishbowl Inventory, what's the point of having rules on Wikipedia at all? I'm not sure what "NPOV" means, but I'm pretty sure it's not this. 75.145.68.89 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:38, 25 February 2013 edit J04n (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 162,644 edits Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishbowl Inventory closed as keep ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:37, 5 October 2013 edit undo 75.145.68.89 (talk) Added comment in support of deletion, way too late Next edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:

	{{Talk:Fishbowl Inventory/GA1}}		{{Talk:Fishbowl Inventory/GA1}}

			This is ridiculous. If this page isn't deleted as an obvious product of the Marketing Department of Fishbowl Inventory, what's the point of having rules on Wikipedia at all? I'm not sure what "NPOV" means, but I'm pretty sure it's not this. [[Special:Contributions/75.145.68.89\|75.145.68.89]] ([[User talk:75.145.68.89\|talk]]) 17:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)