Talk:Applied Predictive Technologies

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Applied Predictive Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091012122924/http://www.stores.org/InformationTechnology/2009/06/Edit03.asp to http://www.stores.org/InformationTechnology/2009/06/Edit03.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Competitors section
Hello Wikipedia! I am Sarah, an employee of Mastercard. This is my first ever edit request, and I hope I am doing it right. I've been doing lots of research on how these work, disclosed my connection to the company above, and understand I can't directly make changes and instead should suggest changes here and wait for editors to review and implement appropriate edits. I have some concerns about the Competitors section. I've read up on due and undue weight, and it seems like the lawsuit is receiving more weight than needed given how little mainstream coverage it has received. The content itself also feels biased, with lines like "The court is considering levying sanctions against Mastercard and / or its counsel for alleged illegal blocking of discovery.", which don't read as encyclopedia content to me. I've also been looking into the use of court documents for citations, since I know news outlets are preferred, and see that there's not a steadfast rule, but found this discussion helpful in guiding my thoughts on weight and what makes sense to include here.
 * I'd like to ask editors whether this section is necessary beyond a short mention? And if editors would like to keep it in the article, I've drafted what I believe is a more neutral version and I think it could be called "Litigation" instead of "Competitors", since that's what the section is really about. I've drafted this using the only sources I could find that weren't court documents.

It is my goal to work with editors to improve this article from an encyclopedic standpoint, so please let me know if you have feedback or suggestions. I hope I can be helpful and thank you in advance for taking the time to review this. SarahP2023 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The passage currently in the "live" article is unacceptable because it quotes one party's PR grandstanding at length (quoting both parties' PR grandstanding would also be unacceptable). By my reading, it also misattributes a motion by MarketDial as something the court is considering (courts consider everything, by definition, and it's my understanding that this motion was denied in February 2023; but regardless, we can't phrase a motion by one party in that way). Based on my own reading of the reliable sources I could find, I found nothing worth mentioning that is omitted in your proposed passage, and I believe your text matches NPOV (pretty rare for COI edit requests!), so I've replaced the current passage with yours, with some copy edits. DFlhb (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. I really appreciate the assistance here and your diligence in double checking sources. Your copy edits look good.


 * I had one other quick question relating to content sourced to the court documents. Since you've had a look at the sourcing, I thought I'd check with you. But I can also make a new request if that's preferable.
 * In the "Software" section, the last sentence reads "APT has since lost its key patent when it was invalidated in 2020 by the US District Court." While a patent was invalidated, the document cited does not specify it was a "key patent". I checked and didn't see any news sources that mentioned the patent, so was wondering if it makes sense to remove this sentence or change it to say: "One of the company's patents was invalidated in 2020 by the US district court"?


 * Thank you again! SarahP2023 (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would rather someone else than me review that; feel free to start another edit request. DFlhb (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries, thank you for letting me know. SarahP2023 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Patent question
Hello again! I'd like to make another request. Just like last time, since I have a COI, I will not make any changes myself.
 * In the "Software" section, the last sentence reads "APT has since lost its key patent when it was invalidated in 2020 by the US District Court." While a patent was invalidated, the document cited does not specify it was a "key patent" and the company has many patents. I checked and didn't see any news sources that mentioned the patent invalidation. I am curious if this information is noteworthy enough to include? If editors do prefer to keep it in, can it be changed to say: "One of the company's patents was invalidated in 2020 by the US district court"?

Thanks in advance! And let me know if you have any questions about my request. SarahP2023 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

History section
Hello again! I've been taking a closer look at the article and would like to propose an update to the History section. In the drafted section below, I replaced a dead link with a working source, and added a few more details about where the idea for the company came from, and its early years.

I'm hoping these changes are improvements from an encyclopedic standpoint, and I would love to hear any feedback or suggestions. Because of my COI, I won't make any changes myself. Thanks! SarahP2023 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Implemented with the exception of the client names (gives a promotional feel) and the descriptor for Accel-KKR as there is a Wikilink and the descriptor sounds weasle-like in my opinion. CNMall41 (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the partial implementation. Understand your reasoning about clients. A quick question on that, I was thinking of suggesting adding some examples of how APT’s software has been used for extra reader context to connect with the example of how tests are structured. Do you think that could be an appropriate addition? Thanks SarahP2023 (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would need to see the request. Unfortunately, I would not be able to opine without looking at a proposal or researching the topic. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Use examples + Introduction
Hello! Following up on the conversation above, I'm back with some content to suggest for the "Software" section, and also have some changes to request for the Introduction. I'm hoping you can take a look and let me know what you think of these requests, your feedback has been super helpful.
 * Software: It feels like the current content here is a bit abstract and it could help readers understand by seeing some specific examples of how the Test & Learn software has been used. Here is what I came up with using third-party sources. I think this would fit well just after the bulleted list.


 * Introduction: The article is using past tense, but APT is still a company, and it operates as a wholly owned subsidiary. The version below changes the tense to present and clarifies the subsidiary status.

Any feedback or questions are appreciated! SarahP2023 (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply 17-JUL-2023
Regards, Spintendo  01:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not entirely clear whether this company still operates as a separate entity.
 * Please provide a source reference from the company itself clearly indicating that it still operates.
 * When ready to proceed with the requested reference, kindly open a new edit request below this post.


 * Hello, I have a few sources for you to look at. These are the easiest to access:
 * OpenCorporates
 * Dun & Bradstreet
 * Bloomberg

Let me know if this is enough proof that the company still operates. Thanks, SarahP2023 (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it isn't. None of those pages offered a narrative which easily explained the company's journey from being independent, to being owned and defunct by/under MasterCard, to being its own company again. Please advise. Spintendo  17:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I understand. To clarify, Applied Predictive Technologies was never defunct, and looking through sources, I don't see any that verify such claims. Does that mean using past tense and the claim that APT "no longer operates as a standalone business" are not verifiable? After the company was acquired by Mastercard, coverage is more limited but I did find this article from The Washington Post that verifies the company was still operating a year after being acquired, and this source form 2017 that also verifies the company continued to operate.
 * Would an acceptable option be to update the language to present tense, and replace "no longer operates as a standalone business" with "as of 2017, the company was still operating and headquartered in Arlington, Virginia."?
 * tagging both of you here in case you have thoughts, since you reviewed my past requests. My goal here is to help make the article as accurate as possible and remove unverified / misleading information. Thanks all, SarahP2023 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The first time I saw the article, I noticed that it says Applied Predictive Technologies (APT) was a software company but your request is asking for that to be changed to is a software company. Your or my abilities to resurrect a company notwithstanding, I can't just change the verb on my own accord. I need some kind of narrative explaining why the verb "was" was used at one time but is no longer so. Was it an error on the part of another editor? Was there a legal change in the company's status? All of this is guesswork. From what I understand, you're saying it's always been a company, which means I need to look on my end to see if it was an error that an editor made in changing it to "was". Regards, Spintendo  21:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've checked and I see that the article was changed to reflect the Mastercard purchase on 10 July 2017. Exactly three years later the article was changed on June 17, 2020 from "is" to "was" by an IP editor. If both instances had happened at the same time — the company being bought and not existing anymore — then the editor would have likely changed them both. The time difference between these two changes indicate the "was" change was inadvertently incorrect. I've changed it back to "is". Regards, Spintendo  21:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Great! Appreciate you looking into that and making the updates. SarahP2023 (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Use examples
Hello! Reposting the following request. It had been included in my last request, but I think it got lost in the discussion about the introduction.
 * Software: It feels like the current content here is a bit abstract and it could help readers if the article included some specific examples of how the Test & Learn software has been used. Here is what I came up with using third-party sources. I propose adding the following content just after the bulleted list:

Feedback and comments are welcome! SarahP2023 (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @SarahP2023 I've updated the test and learn section. I agree that the previous version was too abstract, and creatively used WikiLinks to mildly promote the software ("APT's software takes a statistically rigorous test and learn approach.. ") Including additional information about each client that uses the software (e.g., McDonalds, etc) while using higher-end references (thank you for that) still seems to resemble a client list, more or less, which I think consensus has shown the community wants to steer away from using. Regards, Spintendo  14:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With that section now largely revised, I believe that merits removal of the advert maintenance template, which I deleted. Regards, Spintendo  14:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit request
Thank you for removing the advertisement banner! I understand the thinking on not adding content that could come off as a client list. I am wondering, though, if we've left the Software section too short. What do you think of adding use examples but without naming any specific clients? Below is a modified draft without commercial clients named. I left in St. Louis, but removed information about the outcome of the analysis:

If you have other thoughts on how to explain the software without being too abstract or promotional, I'm open to hearing them. Thanks! SarahP2023 (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply 14-AUG-2023
Spintendo 00:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! SarahP2023 (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction request
Hello again! Thank you to everyone for all of the assistance reviewing my requests. I think the article is looking a lot better. I'd like to suggest some minor changes to the introduction so it provides a clearer summary of the article body. Always happy to hear feedback. Thanks! SarahP2023 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest replacing the current introduction with:
 * My suggested version specifies that APT is an American company, what it's known for, and when it was founded. All of these details are already verified in the article body.
 * The problem I see with this is that it makes a claim of being "known for its....". This would necessitate having the template being added if no explanation is applied to it. Please advise. Regards,  Spintendo  17:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * To avoid any confusion, I have rewritten my proposed introduction to eliminate the "by whom" issue you raise, while still offering a clearer summary of the article body. Specifically, my suggested version specifies that APT is an American company, what it produces, and when it was founded. All of these details are already verified in the article body.




 * How does this look? SarahP2023 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply 30-AUG-2023
Spintendo 21:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! SarahP2023 (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)