Talk:Viralheat/GA1

GA Review

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."

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)[reply]

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.

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

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.

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)[reply]

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).

Done Looks like a clean bill of health CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]