Talk:Coupa

COI edit requests
Hi, I work for a communications firm that represents Coupa, and I have a couple suggestions for improving this article:


 * 1) I've drafted up a new "History" section for the article in my sandbox that incorporates information from the lead and has the current "Funding" section as a subsection. I added a line to the “Funding” section about 2009’s Series C round of funding.  I've also cleaned up a few citations and added some additional detail and more recent news — you can see full details in the revision history if you're so inclined. A few of the refs currently appear bare; that's because I left the ref names in as they currently are in the article (wanted to make this as simple as possible to implement), so they'll fill back in if they're added to the article.
 * 2) In addition to moving some of the info from the lead into the new "History" section, I propose adding a couple lines to the lead to convey a bit more about the size of the company: "Coupa has served more than 500 customers and has processed more than $120 billion in spend. As of December 2015, Coupa estimates that it has helped businesses save over $6.1 billion. "

Because of my COI, I won't be editing the article myself, but I would love if someone could take a look at what I've proposed and implement it or offer feedback. It should be pretty straightforward — adding in the new History section and addition to the lead, then removing the duplicate info from the lead and the "Funding" section. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC); request edit template added Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks for making the implementation easy! — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 08:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, ! Did you have a chance to look at #2 in my suggestions, about adding a couple lines to the lead? Just double checking. Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I didn't do that because it looks quite promotional and the tone didn't seem quite right, and then I forgot about it altogether. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 16:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you again. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)