Talk:Smartsheet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSmartsheet 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
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2015Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2019Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Draft[edit]

The current article has some promotionalism that is typically indicative of conflicted editing. The lead focuses excessively on customers, it has a dedicated section for Awards and the Features section just lists features, instead of providing a summary and description based on reliable sources.

I've put a draft together at Talk:Smartsheet/draft that I would like to suggest as a proposed replacement for the current article that would correct this. It would also make the article more up-to-date, better sourced, more comprehensive, etc. I would also like to add some images and a short video, but will have to work those out later for copyright reasons. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the draft. It is indeed significantly better than what was there. I made some copyedits and swapped it in. @CorporateM: what do you typically do with the drafts? history merge? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Thanks for reviewing! Regarding the technical process of how the draft is merged, I'm indifferent.
If you care to review any others, I'm always scrounging for an editor to look at this kind of stuff.
I'll get started on squaring away the images on this page, starting with the logo. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 02:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Samtar (talk · contribs) 09:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Clear, concise and clear of spelling and grammatical errors. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Passing. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) All references conform to WP:FNNR. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) In-line citations to WP:RSs. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No WP:OR. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No copyvio. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Covers the mainaspects of the topic. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Does not go into unnecessary detail. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Article represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Very stable - no content disputes. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Two images are present, both of which with fair-use rationales. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Both images are captioned. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass Well done - passes GA criteria at the time of review.

Discussion[edit]

  • I plan to finish the rest of the review process this evening (GMT) @CorporateM: apologies for the delay -- samtar whisper 12:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Updates[edit]

It's been almost two years since I brought this page up to GA status with the help of @Rhododendrites:. Since then the company has raised more funding, its user base has doubled, and new sources have been published. I have placed some suggested updates to the page at Talk:Smartsheet/draft that would bring the page up to date and would like to request an unaffiliated editor consider incorporating them if they improve the article.

I am hesitant as to whether the lawsuit with Amazon (included in the draft) warrants inclusion and leave it up to the editor reviewing. From what I can tell, Smartsheet did prompt the lawsuit by offering to hire an Amazon employee but was not otherwise substantially involved in the litigation or settlement that was between Amazon and the Smartsheet employee. CorporateM (Talk) 21:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: I've updated the article. I left out the lawsuit since Smartsheet wasn't directly involved, only an employee. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updates 2[edit]

Requesting a few minor updates located at Talk:Smartsheet/draft, which includes three revisions:

  • Update employee count
  • Add a recent acquisition
  • Add that it started a user conference

Thank you in advance for your time and attention in helping keep the article up to date. CorporateM (Talk) 16:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 26-JAN-2018[edit]

check Partially implemented

  1. Even though an article on software, information on the employee count and acquisition was added.
  2. Information on their customer conference — curiously labeled as a user conference — was declined, as it promotes a sales event.
Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 19:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community reassessment[edit]

Smartsheet[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Not really fishy and found a citation for the release date AIRcorn (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The GA status of this article strikes me as fishy- it was initiated by CorporateM (talk · contribs), a wikipedian who admits to running a business that "contributed more than 50 Good Article-ranked pages about businesses and individuals", and completed by Samtar (talk · contribs), who I wasn't able to find much on.

As for the article itself, it's decently NPOV and does an okay job of talking about the company and the product, but there's not a lot of content. If GA is supposed to identify articles that are better than average, but not at FA status, I wouldn't argue that this page meets that criteria. Given my inexperience as an editor, I'm nominating it for community reassessment. Rivselis (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and I must say I was not really impressed. I could immediately tell that criteria 1a and 1b of GAC needed attention. I also uploaded a new logo, added two {{citation needed}} tags, two {{Clarification needed}} tags, and fixed one contradictory statement. (And I learned about all of these today.) It still needs more work. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is odd. The review is signed Samtar, but has only been edited by There'sNoTime. Maybe they renamed their account, but I would have expected the contribs to be linked. Anyway TNT has been around a long time and I think is even an admin, so the review is not as much as a concern as first impressions might suggest. CorporateM is pretty open about what they do so that is not really an issue. I would say going through the GA process is a good thing for paid editing as it brings other eyes to the article. AIRcorn (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Work management[edit]

Vendors call it "work management". 

 https://www.smartsheet.com/

So, wouldn't it be better to change the expression to "work management"? Mocha c jp (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. They're synonyms. We can use word we actually have an article for. MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smartsheet&oldid=1205333014"