Talk:CSG International/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria 
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * pending changes and a possible 2nd opinion regarding NPOV
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * pending changes and a possible 2nd opinion regarding NPOV
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * pending changes and a possible 2nd opinion regarding NPOV

Comments

 * 1) CSG was the second largest billing services provider for the US cable television industry When? Also, the last name referenced was CSG Systems International yet here is refered to as CSG which makes determining the timeline difficult. In fact, that whole paragraph needs to be more explicit about the time period it's talking about as it could be refering to any time between 1994 and now.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 17:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) within a few months 350 out of the company's original 500 employees left the firm. The new CSG International grew quickly. How did we go from losing over half their employees to a new firm that is growing quickly? This transition needs to be clarified more.
 * ✅ I made a tweak - does that make it more clear? Employees were not lost due to financial hardship, but because of the changes the new executives were making. CorporateM (Talk) 17:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I made a tweak - does that make it more clear? Employees were not lost due to financial hardship, but because of the changes the new executives were making. CorporateM (Talk) 17:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) As part of the deal, CSG also acquired TCI's internally-developed software, SummiTrack, for $106 million.[10][12] CSG's services to TCI included billing, customer management and payment processing for TCI customers. These senctences don't really make much sense in context. Does CSG do something with the software? Is this important later on?
 * It had a significant placement in the source material as part of the acquisition, but I don't think I saw any mention of it in other sources later on. I got the impression it was part of getting them to buy into using CSG, rather than their own system. CorporateM (Talk) 17:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It had a significant placement in the source material as part of the acquisition, but I don't think I saw any mention of it in other sources later on. I got the impression it was part of getting them to buy into using CSG, rather than their own system. CorporateM (Talk) 17:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Post-IPO covers 1996 to 2014 and Recent History covers from 1997 to 2007. These time periods shouldn't overlap (or should at least overlap minimally).
 * ✅ I substantially re-organized it. CorporateM (Talk) 17:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I substantially re-organized it. CorporateM (Talk) 17:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) co-founder George Haddix retired and former EVP Jack Pogge was appointed in his place as President and Chief Operating Officer. Of mc2 or CSG?
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 17:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 17:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) NASAQ should that be NASDAQ?
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 17:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 17:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Results
On Hold for 7 days. Overall it looks good. I'm going to try and get a second reviewer to look over the article for neutrality because while nothing seems particularly off, the tone feels a little non-neutral (and may very well be because I know of your WP:COI). In the mean time, work on the changes suggested, and if I can't get a second opinion in a reasonable time, I'll let it go. Wugapodes (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I've gone through the suggested changes and look forward to the second opinion. CorporateM (Talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's been a week with no response on a second opinion. How would you like to proceed? I'm happy to wait longer if you like. BTW - I have just gained instant respect for you in that you are willing to acknowledge that a COI disclosure may bias your perspective. Most editors are not so humble. CorporateM (Talk) 20:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to list it. It looks good and if another editor thinks that there's a significant neutrality problem, they can fix it or have it reassessed. And thanks, I just know that people often find what we look for rather than what's there, plus a positive tone ≠ non-neutral, though it can feel like it sometimes especially if you're looking for neutrality problems. Anyway, good work on the article! While not a problem for WP:GA, if you plan to go for WP:FA, the acquisitions section, particularly that it's a table rather than prose, may raise an objection or two. I don't think there's any real problem but maybe look through WP:USEPROSE and MOS:TABLES. Keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I also just pinged a user asking if they have time to give it a quick lookover. If they do find neutrality problems, we can always fix it even now that it's GA ranked. I'm trying to work my through doing some reviews myself, because I've done more than 30 noms and only a handful of reviews. Articles about extant organizations is where I am most qualified, but there are very few noms besides my own. Most editors just aren't interested in writing articles about corporations. CorporateM (Talk) 21:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Coming here after being pinged First off, reviewing GAs is not my usual field of work here (although, nowadays, I don't do much anymore), so bear with me. I read the article and while it did strike me as somewhat advertising in tone, I think that is normal for such articles ("company did X, company launched Y, etc."). Unless there are major controversies, all articles about companies will consist of the company's history and their products because there is nothing else to talk about. I think this is what Wugapodes referred to as feeling a "little non-neutral". Imho, as an editor whose best content work is a couple of DYKs, the neutrality is not a problem. HTH. Regards  So Why  19:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)