From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

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.[7][8][9] and developer accounts are free."
Yes check.svg Done I have given it a good culling-through for basic grammar and other copyediting issues. Though I don't think I made any changes to the second sentence used as an example. Looks ok to me. CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

Yes check.svg Done Looks like a clean bill of health on this point. CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

X mark.svg Not done I can see how it might appear this way at first-look, but it is a small company in a crowded space. Based on the source material available, I don't think it would be proper to expand it further. CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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).

Yes check.svg Done Looks like a clean bill of health CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

I will see if I can find someone willing to edit boldly on this. It is difficult to resolve issues where editors may reasonably disagree where I cannot edit boldly on account of my COI. CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Reviewer: Augbog (talk · contribs) 05:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Augubog! I started on some grammar fixes and copyediting, but I gotta run. I'll keep working through it later today. CorporateM (Talk) 13:46, 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)