Jump to content

Talk:Act-On/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 21:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I've been on an unexpected Wikibreak for a while, but I look forward to reviewing GANs again. I'm sure that this will be another quality submission from CorporateM! Edge3 (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • "Act-On Software is a software-as-a-service product..." -- I'm not sure what "software-as-a-service" means. Can you clarify it by providing a wikilink or using a different phrase? Edge3 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I added the missing Wikilink CorporateM (Talk) 00:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article about the product or the company? Try to be consistent. The infobox describes the company, but the first sentence's subject is the product. The second sentence uses the pronoun "it", which presumably refers to the product. But the third sentence refers to the company. In the fourth sentence, "it" refers to the company, unlike the second sentence. Edge3 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, the article is on the software (the more notable of the two) per the usual standards I use for this kind of thing. But the infobox is a company infobox. I should change it to a Software infobox, but then I lose some good information, like number of employees, so I'm not sure. CorporateM (Talk) 01:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to MOS:INFOBOX, an infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject" (emphasis added). The infobox should match the subject of the article, but I acknowledge that it is sometimes difficult to make the distinction between the company and the product. What are some similar articles that we could look at for examples? Edge3 (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I switched it out for a software infobox. CorporateM (Talk) 03:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Product reviews and analyst reports give Act-On positive reviews for use by small to medium-sized business due to its ease-of-use, simplicity and cost, but say that it does not have many of the sophisticated features needed for larger enterprises." -- Please consider splitting and simplifying this sentence for clarity. Edge3 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done does that work? CorporateM (Talk) 01:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please check for factual accuracy, including whether this was done "two years later". (The preceding sentence referred to 2007, so 2009 is two years later). The source says that Cisco gave $2 million in 2008, but it also links to this source, which says that Act-On raised only 995,000. Please let me know if I failed to interpret the sources correctly Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I would go with this source for $2 million, because that one is done in retrospect, while the other is referring to a very specific distribution (my guess is there were two payments of almost $1 million each). CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Software as a service. CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to DemandGen Report, Act-On entered the market after several competitors had already been established. Act-On calls this a “Last Mover Advantage,” because it could learn from the successes and failures of early market entrants." -- You could make this more concise, and link to second-mover advantage. Perhaps you could say: "Entering the market after several competitors had been established, Act-On enjoyed a second-mover advantage because it could learn from the successes and failures of early market entrants." Edge3 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 01:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 05:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It acquired a struggling software developer, MarketBright, for its customers and employees a month later, without integrating its intellectual property" -- It seems speculative to say that the acquisition was mainly for the customers and employees, and not for the assets or intellectual property. I would avoid the claim, unless it's really important: "A month later, it acquired MarketBright, a struggling software developer, for its customers, intellectual property, and knowledge base." Edge3 (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the exact text of The source is "Marketbright code was not merged into Act-On." Code being a software company's primary intellectual property, this seems like a reasonable interpretation. Though maybe something like saying it's products of software was not integrated would be a more precise representation of the source. This source says "primarily to own its marketing assets and convert Marketbright’s customer base." CorporateM (Talk) 05:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it, but found another source with the same info. CorporateM (Talk) 06:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Confirmed. Their headquarters were always based in Beaverton, but they moved into larger offices as they grew twice. In the second instance, the article text says "again" and I did some copyediting to make the first reference more clear that they were already in Beaverton. CorporateM (Talk) 05:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't Menlo Park in Silicon Valley? Currently, your statement implies that they're distinct. ("new locations in Silicon Valley and Menlo Park, CA") Also, please wikilink Menlo Park.
  • Do not use state abbrevations like "OR" and "CA". Use the full names instead, per MOS:ABBR#Special considerations. Edge3 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks for catching that - jeez I can be sloppy sometimes. CorporateM (Talk) 02:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That April..." -- This seems awkward. Maybe "April of that year"? Or perhaps you don't need to specify the month, so you could simply say "In the same year". Also, please describe "Gamify Green for Good", if it's important for the reader to know that this hackathon existed. Edge3 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The exact text of the sources is "based on applying computer applications and game technology to solve “real-world problems" I just said "computer games" though it's not clear if that's exactly what the source meant, it's the closest thing I could think of without creating a copyright problem, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 05:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could say "gaming applications" instead? That would be closer to the source. Edge3 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done That's perfect CorporateM (Talk) 02:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Version history

[edit]
  • Please provide more detail for products or tools like Twitter Prospector, HotProspects, Insights, etc. Edge3 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see that you've already provided the details in the "Features" section. Perhaps there is a better way to merge this information, or to provide adequate descriptions in the "Version history" section? Edge3 (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at FA articles, they do sometimes have repetition between the Version history and Features sections, but not as much as this one. It could be merged into the Corporate history and Features sections, but another way of doing it would be to make it a sub-section of the Features section, so the dates each feature was released on is after the features themselves are explained. CorporateM (Talk) 05:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a merger would be fine. For example, in the "Features" section, you could say, "it has a Twitter Prospector tool, added in 2010, that identifies and filters tweets that may be from prospects or customers" Edge3 (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 03:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

[edit]
  • Per WP:ORDER, external links are placed after the references section.
 DoneCorporateM (Talk) 05:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit redundant and I usually try to avoid duplication between the infobox and the article, but for some reason it's the norm to have it in both places. For example, Panavision and Microsoft are both FA and have it in both places. CorporateM (Talk) 05:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why isn't this source already incorporated into the article? Edge3 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though the article is a tad promotional, it seems useful as a link for "here's an example of how it's used" kind of thing. I don't really see anything in the source worth adding to the article though. CorporateM (Talk) 02:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we need the part after "because" in this sentence?

Entering the market after several competitors had been established, Act-On enjoyed a second-mover advantage, because it could learn from the successes and failures of early market entrants.

Because the "second-mover advantage" has a wiki-link and it feels like it may have too much weight. CorporateM (Talk) 03:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The extra description of "second-mover advantage" is redundant. Edge3 (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Features

[edit]
  • You describe Twitter Prospector as a tool "that identifies and filters tweets that may be from prospects or customers". However, that doesn't seem representative of the sources, which mention the tool's role in publishing content and tracking social media activity. Edge3 (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ω Awaiting Could you please resolve this? I also noticed that the sentence uses the word "tweets" without a wikilink or clarification, which could confuse readers not familiar with Twitter. Edge3 (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I used this source mostly because it had a more down-to-earth summary description rather than the review that discussed its individual features in detail. CorporateM (Talk) 19:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hot Prospects tool, which was introduced at the 2011 Dreamforce conference" -- I couldn't find any mention of the Dreamforce conference. Edge3 (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see that you provide a source later in the sentence. Perhaps this sentence has too many references... Remember that citations tell the reader where they can go for more information. If there are too many citations, then the reader may be overwhelemed. Edge3 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
I trust your judgement if you prefer to use a single source, but it looks like I was combining the 1-10 range provided by a review and the 2-15 stated by the founder in an interview with a trade publication. Though technically it's original synthesis, that's normally how I handle conflicts in numbers like that. CorporateM (Talk) 02:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wasn't aware that the other source said 2-15. The synthesis is fine. You can keep the sentence as-is. Edge3 (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About 3/4ths of the way down there is a table labeled "Leading Vendors". It does say it is based on self-reported data from the vendors in the table, so it is essentially primary though... CorporateM (Talk) 00:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2011, about 10 percent of Act-On's revenues are from WebEx users and 60 percent are from Salesforce users." -- Could you please point me to the source text? The source says on page 7 that 60% of users use Salesforce, but it doesn't imply that 60% of revenues are from Salesforce users ("More of our customers are finding us, and 60% of them use Salesforce."). Edge3 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I corrected it to say customers instead of revenue CorporateM (Talk) 00:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]
How's that? CorporateM (Talk) 00:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It said Act-On's strengths were its simple user interface and pricing" -- This seems redundant with the previous sentence, which also mentions Act-On's simplicity. Edge3 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? CorporateM (Talk) 00:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very specific report Forrester Research does annually for a variety of industries (sort of like the Gartner Hype Cycle if you're familiar with that). Unfortunately we don't have an article or a sub-section on the Forrester article about it for me to link to. CorporateM (Talk) 00:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Pass Thanks for your contributions to this article, and for responding to my feedback! Edge3 (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Act-On/GA1&oldid=609178137"